NationStates Jolt Archive

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.
I dont feel the Governemnt has the right to ban any type of small arm from law abiding citizens(and yes I know exactly what falls under the term small arms, and I still mean it).

You'll take it from my cold dead hands!

the only way to secure true freedom for a nations citizens is to allow them to own heavy weapons. small arms are virtually useless in the defense of liberty
against a tryranical state.

The _politicians_ (in both the government and the opposition) have whatever power _you_ give them. If this includes introducing new laws and changing the consititution, the YES - THEY HAVE THE POWER.

However, if enough of the population takes a dislike to the new law/constitution ammendment, then I'd expect that the politicians would then find themselves voted out, and the laws changed back......

Remember, society changes all the time - what was legal yesterday, is _illegal_ today, but can be made legal again tomorrow......

You'll take it from my cold dead hands!

i can tell you they wont get them from me

Hey, news for everyone. Read the second amendment carefully. The government has the right to regulate whatever firearms it damn well pleases.

thank yall, im glad im not the only one who feels this way, yall have awesome points!

the only way to secure true freedom for a nations citizens is to allow them to own heavy weapons. small arms are virtually useless in the defense of liberty

You're either an anarchist, or you're being sarcastic.

Personally, this nation would probably be a lot safer without firearms being sold rampantly in our convinience stores and shoppingmalls. Yes, we'd then have a black market for them, but would that really make any difference?

The kids who massacred those students and teachers at Columbine didn't get any background checks.

The problem is, this nation is far, far too linient.

And besides. You don't need a semi-automatic to hunt.

thank yall, im glad im not the only one who feels this way, yall have awesome points!

I seemed to have missed those.

----"the only way to secure true freedom for a nations citizens is to allow them to own heavy weapons. small arms are virtually useless in the defense of liberty against a tryranical state."

I would say that every aspect of history will prove that wrong and has done that till this day. What about the teams of small arms experts (mercenary's) that have been overthrowing governments since the first time someone figured out you could hire out for your dirty work. Small arms experts only need to over take 1 armory for thier equipment to be on a level playing field. Inlcuding it is always in some countries best interest to have a helping hand in the matter.

I think we agree though? That this is why we don't have a choice but to arm our population, because our population is also our active military, vets, teachers, police, firemen (when I got my ccw there was an entire district recieving thiers) and everyday Americans that just go out and plink off a few rounds at the local rock pit. For hunting, hiking,camping, or shooting the local kid that comes through your window. Just as long as it is used in a legal and safe manner.

You're either an anarchist, or you're being sarcastic.

Personally, this nation would probably be a lot safer without firearms being sold rampantly in our convinience stores and shoppingmalls. Yes, we'd then have a black market for them, but would that really make any difference?

The kids who massacred those students and teachers at Columbine didn't get any background checks.

The problem is, this nation is far, far too linient.

And besides. You don't need a semi-automatic to hunt.

do u hunt duck or dove? yes you don't need one but it makes it a lot easier. Also i do belive that convicted criminals should not have the right to own guns (depending on their crime) but for all law abiding citizens the 2nd amend. applies.
if you take guns away from the general population, those people who get them for evil crimanal ways would still get them but no one else would have them to defend themselfs.

do u hunt duck or dove? yes you don't need one but it makes it a lot easier.

First of all- Why would I hunt when I can buy already killed animals at the grocery store?

Secondly, You don't need one. But if you plan on killing large numbers of PEOPLE, you do. Columbine couldn't have happened with anything other than an automatic or a semi automatic.

----"Hey, news for everyone. Read the second amendment carefully. The government has the right to regulate whatever firearms it damn well pleases."


BlarG dude,

Did you find the provision on this? No? Wow news to me.

Why you always trying to rile up all the gullible gun nuts lol with some made up crap... (I do agree people should find out if its true before they make an ass of themselves)

First of all- Why would I hunt when I can buy already killed animals at the grocery store?

Secondly, You don't need one. But if you plan on killing large numbers of PEOPLE, you do. Columbine couldn't have happened with anything other than an automatic or a semi automatic.

I hunt for the food and the sport.
also, the kids at columbine could have used whatever the hell they wanted to. no one else hwas armed, if your in a secured facility and you are the only one armed, you could kill just as many people with a black powder muzzle loader and a pistol.

Hey, news for everyone. Read the second amendment carefully. The government has the right to regulate whatever firearms it damn well pleases.

What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

The kids who massacred those students and teachers at Columbine didn't get any background checks.

Didn't they take parents' guns?

Secondly, You don't need one. But if you plan on killing large numbers of PEOPLE, you do. Columbine couldn't have happened with anything other than an automatic or a semi automatic.

Who are you to tell me I don't "need" semi-automatic firearm? As I recall, Klebold and Harris only had one semi-automatic weapon.

You just called me a mass murderer. I do not appreciate that.

Of course, we're sidestepping the real issue here which is that semi-automatic weapons are still available.

I hunt for the food and the sport.
also, the kids at columbine could have used whatever the hell they wanted to. no one else hwas armed, if your in a secured facility and you are the only one armed, you could kill just as many people with a black powder muzzle loader and a pistol.
well that's only sure if you mean your position is secured against attack while you reload. certainly an individual with a muzzleloader could be overpowered by the unarmed staff or the older students while reloading if they were in an exposed position within the school even if the school was secured from people outside.

well that's only sure if you mean your position is secured against attack while you reload. certainly an individual with a muzzleloader could be overpowered by the unarmed staff or the older students while reloading if they were in an exposed position within the school even if the school was secured from people outside.


thats why i said pistol, but i was exacrating (how ever u spell it) to help prove my point, the odds of some one killing all those people with a muzzle loader is a slim possibility but it helped with my point

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.You're a big sport aren't you? Bolt action or pump action don't give you enough of an advantage to slaughter enough animals to satisfy that itch?

Didn't they take parents' guns?
No, they bought them at gun shows.

Who are you to tell me I don't "need" semi-automatic firearm? As I recall, Klebold and Harris only had one semi-automatic weapon.
They had one apeice and I'm sure most would agree, that was more than enought to kill the amount of people they did.

Who am I to tell you? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I have a damn right to be safe. I don't want semi-automatic firearms to be in the hands of ordinary citizens such as yourself.

Firearms are things for the military and the police. Both of which having formal educations and deep background checks.

also, the kids at columbine could have used whatever the hell they wanted to.
Which is yet another reason to restrict arms sales.

no one else hwas armed, if your in a secured facility and you are the only one armed, you could kill just as many people with a black powder muzzle loader and a pistol.
Red Guard address that well.

I'm glad I don't live in a gun crazed country.

You're a big sport aren't you? Bolt action or pump action don't give you enough of an advantage to slaughter enough animals to satisfy that itch?

One i shoot both, but answer this, when your watching tv, if you have a remote do you still get up and walk to the tv to change channels or adjust the volume. And killing animals is part of life deal with it.

----"First of all- Why would I hunt when I can buy already killed animals at the grocery store? Secondly, You don't need one. But if you plan on killing large numbers of PEOPLE, you do. Columbine couldn't have happened with anything other than an automatic or a semi automatic. "

Read the following post... the kids at columbine secured the building before the massacre, they could of been running around with samurai swords and slaughtered ( and even more despicable) even more people. I dont hunt anymore personaly because I do go down to the grocery store now myself by choice but I also don't want to restrict someone elses freedom to hunt because then you are no different than the jackasses that want to restrict the freedoms you enjoy in return.

I believe another retarded American proved that you dont need any firearms to cause mass casualties (i'll go out on a limb.... tim?) A little of deezole nuts and fertilizer does goes much further than any ole stinkin gun. Maybe we should be going after the truck drivers and farmers, right?

I'm glad I don't live in a gun crazed country.

im glad i live in a country where my rights are protected and i am free to hunt and fish. plus the country is not "gun crazed" but those of us who enjoy the sport of shooting want to protect our rights.

----"First of all- Why would I hunt when I can buy already killed animals at the grocery store? Secondly, You don't need one. But if you plan on killing large numbers of PEOPLE, you do. Columbine couldn't have happened with anything other than an automatic or a semi automatic. "

Read the following post... the kids at columbine secured the building before the massacre, they could of been running around with samurai swords and slaughtered ( and even more despicable) even more people. I dont hunt anymore personaly because I do go down to the grocery store now myself by choice but I also don't want to restrict someone elses freedom to hunt because then you are no different than the jackasses that want to restrict the freedoms you enjoy in return.

I believe another retarded American proved that you dont need any firearms to cause mass casualties (i'll go out on a limb.... tim?) A little of deezole nuts and fertilizer does goes much further than any ole stinkin gun. Maybe we should be going after the truck drivers and farmers, right?

thank you. the only thing with a grocery store is they don't sell duck, deer, dove, etc...(well we do see deer sometimes but not regulary) but i app. your support. :)

But we could prevent a lot LESS crime than if semi automatics were legal. The number of gun crimes in this country are already staggering, why allow frighteningly dangerous weapons to be legal in a country in which its inhabitants have very obviously not reached the level of maturity to be able to handle them?

Who am I to tell you? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I have a damn right to be safe. I don't want semi-automatic firearms to be in the hands of ordinary citizens such as yourself.

You have a right to be safe, but I don't?

You didn't answer your own question... =\

Now, I think we could get so much farther if you wouldn't call me a mass murderer. You liberals have to stop assuming that all the smelly common folk are criminals by nature.

Oh, and you don't reduce gun crime by banning weapons used in less than 1-2% of gun crimes, which account for only about a quarter of all violent crime...

If guns cause crime, women cause prostitution.

BlarG dude,

Did you find the provision on this? No? Wow news to me.

Why you always trying to rile up all the gullible gun nuts lol with some made up crap... (I do agree people should find out if its true before they make an ass of themselves)

*sigh*

Well, I can't find my pocket constitution so I repeat as close from memory as I can.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the public to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Before we yell about this being made up, lets look at our bill of rights. Okay, notice the phrase A well regulated militia That gives the federal government the right to regulate what weapons people can own, how, and where they can buy them.

Now for some History.

The founding fathers were afraid of democracy. Don't believe me? Go back and look at U.S. history notes. The founders riddled the constitution with stopgap measures to halt pure democracy. They didn't even want the bill of rights in the first place but faced serious opposition from Sam Adams and Patrick Henry (gun nuts can thank those two), so they had to put in the Bill of Rights.

Since they hated pure democracy, the founders put in a provision that gave them enough control over what the populace did to prevent successful armed uprisings. Mainly, the right of the federal government to regulate the arms industry. Now true, you do have the right to own guns, but, due to the loophole the founders put in, the government gets to regulate that gun.

Still don't believe me? Well, its up to you to look back into history for yourself then.

whats this ordinary people like me bussiness, just because im not in the milatary or someting special i automatically am dangerous with a semiauto shotgun in my hand? Maybe so if your a duck.
*reffering to a coment a few comments back by Gaard*

Or, you can go right to the source (http://www.constitution.org/dfc/dfc_0000.htm).

im glad i live in a country where my rights are protected and i am free to hunt and fish. plus the country is not "gun crazed" but those of us who enjoy the sport of shooting want to protect our rights.

Meh, you can still shoot for sport here, fish all you like assuming its not a protected species.(where do guns come into this..?)

----"But we could prevent a lot LESS crime than if semi automatics were legal. The number of gun crimes in this country are already staggering, why allow frighteningly dangerous weapons to be legal in a country in which its inhabitants have very obviously not reached the level of maturity to be able to handle them?"

I agree the restrictions should only be aimed at criminals and the ones not mature enough to handle them (our kids). Thats not to say a child shouldn't own a gun or hunt anymore, but if there is restriction it should be pointed at the immature ones and criminals. Yes I agree. ;)

To be honest, I would like it very much if no-one except the military and the police had guns. That's the way it is in Norway, except for these hunting rifles and these hunting shotguns. I would like it better if they got banned as well.
Americans on he other hand, you have this right to carry any weapon you'd like... I think that is just awful, and it only creates more crime. The US of A is a Cowboy Nation. The rest of the world doesn't like that. Bush, open your eyes!

One i shoot both, but answer this, when your watching tv, if you have a remote do you still get up and walk to the tv to change channels or adjust the volume. And killing animals is part of life deal with it.I was raised on a farm numbnuts, I can deal with killing animals. If you wanna hunt, make it a little sporting. I'm so tired of lazy SOB's who have no skill and whine because they need a semi-auto. You'll get no sympathy from me, real hunting is done with a bow.

----"But we could prevent a lot LESS crime than if semi automatics were legal. The number of gun crimes in this country are already staggering, why allow frighteningly dangerous weapons to be legal in a country in which its inhabitants have very obviously not reached the level of maturity to be able to handle them?"

I agree the restrictions should only be aimed at criminals and the ones not mature enough to handle them (our kids). Thats not to say a child shouldn't own a gun or hunt anymore, but if there is restriction it should be pointed at the immature ones and criminals. Yes I agree. ;)

see and thats fine with me, thats why the NRA asstablished the Hunters Education Course which is required to get a hunting lic. in Lousiana which is required in order to hunt after your 16th birthday. This is assuming that anyone under the age of 16 is hunting with an adult or someone responasble.

----"Since they hated pure democracy, the founders put in a provision that gave them enough control over what the populace did to prevent successful armed uprisings. Mainly, the right of the federal government to regulate the arms industry. Now true, you do have the right to own guns, but, due to the loophole the founders put in, the government gets to regulate that gun.
Still don't believe me? Well, its up to you to look back into history for yourself then. "

:D :D :D :D Please dont be a sore loser man...you said you would find this mysterious provision for us all to see.

Hmmm still no luck I see.... please keep on lookin!

I give you an A in creativity but an F in factual basis.

whats this ordinary people like me bussiness, just because im not in the milatary or someting special i automatically am dangerous with a semiauto shotgun in my hand? Maybe so if your a duck.
Get a hold of the English language, man. Come back when you have.

You have a right to be safe, but I don't?

You didn't answer your own question... =\
I have a right to be safe from gun owners.

Now, I think we could get so much farther if you wouldn't call me a mass murderer.
And if you have any grasp of colloqulial English, then you will understand that when I said "you" in that particular sentence, it meant some unnamed, nonexistant individual.

You liberals have to stop assuming that all the smelly common folk are criminals by nature.
You critisize me because I want trained individuals handling law enforcement?

Oh, and you don't reduce gun crime by banning weapons used in less than 1-2% of gun crimes, which account for only about a quarter of all violent crime...

What about the UK? There is a minute amount of gun crimes in that country, and, guess what, guns are banned there. Not even the police use them.

If guns cause crime, women cause prostitution.
Yeah, but they aide crime. It is FAR harder to kill someone with a knife.

I was raised on a farm numbnuts, I can deal with killing animals. If you wanna hunt, make it a little sporting. I'm so tired of lazy SOB's who have no skill and whine because they need a semi-auto. You'll get no sympathy from me, real hunting is done with a bow.

REAL hunting is done with no weapons at all, like animals do it :D

cept the archer fish, they cheat.

We're the best. Do we care what you say on behalf of "the rest of the world"? Try saying this to a room full of people who are alive today because they were armed during a criminal attack, or perhaps some veterans of the American Revolution. As I believe I've already mentioned, FBI studies show that guns are used in only 27% of violent crimes.

I was raised on a farm numbnuts, I can deal with killing animals. If you wanna hunt, make it a little sporting. I'm so tired of lazy SOB's who have no skill and whine because they need a semi-auto. You'll get no sympathy from me, real hunting is done with a bow.

one i never said I needed a semiauto to hunt with, my main shotgun is a Remmington 870 12guage pump but that still dosnet give someone the right to take them away.
have you ever killed a dove witha bow and arrow, i dont think so, for deer bow huntings fince but it dosent work for anything except big game; which is not all i wish to hunt.

:D :D :D :D Please dont be a sore loser man...you said you would find this mysterious provision for us all to see.

Hmmm still no luck I see.... please keep on lookin!

I give you an A in creativity but an F in factual basis.

I don't have open internet access so I can't go grab a random link for you.

I'm not quite sure I see how I'm being sore here, I provided a good background for you.

Can you counter this? If you can't I've won regardless of how well presented you think the point is. By the way, the basis of this is an AP US History course. As far as I'm concerned, you've tried to mock me (done a bad job there) but have not been able to present a single counter-argument.

Get a hold of the English language, man. Come back when you have.


I have a right to be safe from gun owners.


And if you have any grasp of colloqulial English, then you will understand that when I said "you" in that particular sentence, it meant some unnamed, nonexistant individual.


You critisize me because I want trained individuals handling law enforcement?



What about the UK? There is a minute amount of gun crimes in that country, and, guess what, guns are banned there. Not even the police use them.


Yeah, but they aide crime. It is FAR harder to kill someone with a knife.

if you have to come up with making fun of my english instead of answering what i said you must be running out of ideas. Oh and i carry a knife but not to kill someone with. Your making broad statements there buddy

one i never said I needed a semiauto to hunt with, my main shotgun is a Remmington 870 12guage pump but that still dosnet give someone the right to take them away.
have you ever killed a dove witha bow and arrow, i dont think so, for deer bow huntings fince but it dosent work for anything except big game; which is not all i wish to hunt.You don't use a semi? So what's your bitch? And if they pass a law saying semi autos were illegal that would be all the right they need to come in and take one away from you. Live with that, that's the way civilized democracy's work. If a law is passed by the majority or the representive government of the people you'd be expected to abide by it like the rest of us. Quitcher whining.

Quote:
Blarg wrote:----"If guns cause crime, women cause prostitution. Yeah, but they aide crime. It is FAR harder to kill someone with a knife."


You still just defunct your argument by saying that women should be banned since they are the cause of prostitution. You are attacking a tool used in a crime not the crime itself and that is why America still has the same freedoms to own the same guns I could when I was a child (by the way there was no restriction on me owning any weapons when I was a kid).

Blarg wrote:-----"I don't have open internet access so I can't go grab a random link for you. I'm not quite sure I see how I'm being sore here, I provided a good background for you. Can you counter this? If you can't I've won regardless of how well presented you think the point is. By the way, the basis of this is an AP US History course. As far as I'm concerned, you've tried to mock me (done a bad job there) but have not been able to present a single counter-argument. ?

Yea yea ok bud, no open internet access (i'll tell you a secret on how to bypass that, put in a universal proxy script like 8080) Ok now that you have that internet access I expect to see the Documentation of a provision withint our Constitution or Federalist Papers that Lists anything at all about regulation now meaning something about the gun and not the malitia member itself.. you were proven a liar once buddy when you tried to say they used a registration form on the weapons back in the late 1700's LOL.. (muster report) now please share with everyone your latest made up story once again??? :D :D :D :D

if you have to come up with making fun of my english instead of answering what i said you must be running out of ideas.
Read the thread, Einstein. I answered your question. Paxania asked the same question as you... except s/he used correct grammar.

We're the best. Do we care what you say on behalf of "the rest of the world"? Try saying this to a room full of people who are alive today because they were armed during a criminal attack,
Don't use that card. There are equally as many people, if not more, who have died in gun crimes.

or perhaps some veterans of the American Revolution. As I believe I've already mentioned, FBI studies show that guns are used in only 27% of violent crimes.
Oh yes. Society was far more refined in the days of the American revolution.

You still just defunct your argument by saying that women should be banned since they are the cause of prostitution. You are attacking a tool used in a crime not the crime itself and that is why America still has the same freedoms to own the same guns I could when I was a child (by the way there was no restriction on me owning any weapons when I was a kid).
But last I checked, prostitution doesn't kill. I can't see how you could ask such vague hypothetical questions in an issue such as gun control.

Face it, when gun sales go down, there is less gun crime. What we need is the most strict background checks imaginable. And every year, at that.

But for some reason, people don't want that.

You don't use a semi? So what's your bitch? And if they pass a law saying semi autos were illegal that would be all the right they need to come in and take one away from you. Live with that, that's the way civilized democracy's work. If a law is passed by the majority or the representive government of the people you'd be expected to abide by it like the rest of us. Quitcher whining.

i still own them and i dont like the idea of them comeing to take them away. if we didnt have gun regstration then they wouldn't even know i have them to come take away.

I no longer buy into argument that the population needs gun to possibly resist the government.

1.) The power of the weapons of the gov't is so far great than the small arms individuals will purchase. The government can drop a targetted 10 ton slab of concrete on your house, if they want to.

2.) There have been many examples in the last half century of peaceful non-violent movements gaining critical mass and shutting everything down. That, combined with indivuiduals having video cameras and the internet, we're safe from a openly totalitarian gov't. (Unless we all get swept up in a craze like Germany did, get caught up a craze of nationalism against some enemy we're afraid of, and then accuse the dissenters of treason.... )

Also, location has a big part to play in it for me. If they banned guns in NYC, I'd have no problem. In rural Colorado, you kind of need a gun.

I don't know. Just my $0.02 :sniper:

Does the goverment have the right to ban guns such as semiauto shotguns/rifles? I use those for hunting and i don't feel anyone has the right to come to my house and take them away from me.

Sorry to tell you this, but hunting is the wrong reason for defending your right to keep arms.

Any government that feels that the populace "just can't be trusted", can't be trusted itself. ~THAT'S~ why we (in the US) can still keep and bear arms.

Get a hold of the English language, man. Come back when you have.


I have a right to be safe from gun owners.

There you go again, calling me (and many others on these boards) a murderer. Here's some advice, if you want safety: become a gun opwner yourself.

And if you have any grasp of colloqulial English, then you will understand that when I said "you" in that particular sentence, it meant some unnamed, nonexistant individual.

You shouldn't be worried about imaginary people ;-)

You critisize me because I want trained individuals handling law enforcement?

You criticise me for not waiting until the police arrive?

What about the UK? There is a minute amount of gun crimes in that country, and, guess what, guns are banned there. Not even the police use them.

Most violent crime does not involve guns.

Yeah, but they aide crime. It is FAR harder to kill someone with a knife.

They also have many other fine uses. Like crime prevention.

Read the thread, Einstein. I answered your question. Paxania asked the same question as you... except s/he used correct grammar.


Don't use that card. There are equally as many people, if not more, who have died in gun crimes.



now i see why you dont like guns, you spend to much freakin time indoors reading up on crap, get outside and enjoy life.

"Don't use that card. There are equally as many people, if not more, who have died in gun crimes"
yeah but they can't talk" lol im sorry but your kinda pissen me off a little

You don't use a semi? So what's your bitch? And if they pass a law saying semi autos were illegal that would be all the right they need to come in and take one away from you. Live with that, that's the way civilized democracy's work. If a law is passed by the majority or the representive government of the people you'd be expected to abide by it like the rest of us. Quitcher whining.

That's the defense of slavery or inequality used throughout the Southern US for 100 years.... "it's a majority (of whites) that don't want blacks to vote, so it's the law of the land".

(rolls eyes, wonders what LOST PLANET is thinking)

Sorry to tell you this, but hunting is the wrong reason for defending your right to keep arms.

Any government that feels that the populace "just can't be trusted", can't be trusted itself. ~THAT'S~ why we (in the US) can still keep and bear arms.

Hunting is plenty of a reason to protect my right to own a gun. Anything you enjoy doing (if legal) is plenty of a reason.

i still own them and i dont like the idea of them comeing to take them away. if we didnt have gun regstration then they wouldn't even know i have them to come take away.Wah, here's a towel. You always get so worked up about "what if's"? Paranoid little gun freak aren't you?

Read the thread, Einstein. I answered your question. Paxania asked the same question as you... except s/he used correct grammar.

He. :-D

But last I checked, prostitution doesn't kill.

*Cough* STD's *Cough*

That's the defense of slavery or inequality used throughout the Southern US for 100 years.... "it's a majority (of whites) that don't want blacks to vote, so it's the law of the land".

(rolls eyes, wonders what LOST PLANET is thinking)

what the hell is that supposed to mean. i live in the south, and if you haddent noticed there must be a lot of black people there or at least i Lousiana becasue i live in northern La which is deep south but catch this we have a black democratic mayor.

Wah, here's a towel. You always get so worked up about "what if's"? Paranoid little gun freak aren't you?

no ijust like debating over my views

Wah, here's a towel. You always get so worked up about "what if's"? Paranoid little gun freak aren't you?

California did it. Lenin and Hitler did it, too.

"i still own them and i dont like the idea of them comeing to take them away. if we didnt have gun regstration then they wouldn't even know i have them to come take away. "

?? you dont have gun registration and if you did, it would be only up to your state not the federal government....I really dont know why all the liberals and conservatives get into such hissy fits over false information from the other side... but it is showing that everyone is a little gullible on the internet... read up, there is no one going to take any of your guns that anyone owns in this country legally now or never..they all get grandfathered in... your states are responsible for gun control not the feds...(the fed assault weapon ban proves that they dont care about banning anything, because you still could own a so called assualt weapon)

That's the defense of slavery or inequality used throughout the Southern US for 100 years.... "it's a majority (of whites) that don't want blacks to vote, so it's the law of the land".

(rolls eyes, wonders what LOST PLANET is thinking)I'm thinking you had to throw in that "(of whites)" to make some sort of point. If you had just said "majority" like I did, it wouldn't have been true.

:rolleyes: California did it. Lenin and Hitler did it, too.
You can still own a semi-auto in Cali. I live there.

There you go again, calling me (and many others on these boards) a murderer. Here's some advice, if you want safety: become a gun opwner yourself.
If someone commits a gun crime... they own a gun. Therefore, I have reason enough to be afraid of gun owners.

However, I also believe that many people buy guns out of fear, and fear is what drives this nation, which is not a good thing.

You shouldn't be worried about imaginary people ;-)
"In order to buy milk, you must have money."

That "you" was that unnamed nonexistant individual. "You" served as "one."

"In order to buy milk, one must have money."

You criticise me for not waiting until the police arrive?
I guess it's kind of a "Chicken and the Egg" thing. If we didn't have guns in the first place, then you wouldn't need one. But, it's illogical to simply remove all guns at once, as Jihad or whatever his name thinks, that people are going to come door to door and take them. A logical plan would entail the slow halt in sales of firearms and ammunitions. Sure, it would take a generation, but it'd make us a lot more like Europe- safer and gunless.

Most violent crime does not involve guns.
But a LOT of it does. 28% is a huge amount of people.

Here's a great pamphlet from the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

If someone commits a gun crime... they own a gun. Therefore, I have reason enough to be afraid of gun owners.



You can hang somebody with a rope, should we be afraid of anyone who owns a rope?
You can kill someone with a bat, should we be afraid of all baseball players?
Many people are killed by cars, should we be afraid of car owners?
etc....

Yea yea ok bud, no open internet access (i'll tell you a secret on how to bypass that, put in a universal proxy script like 8080) Ok now that you have that internet access I expect to see the Documentation of a provision withint our Constitution or Federalist Papers that Lists anything at all about regulation now meaning something about the gun and not the malitia member itself.. you were proven a liar once buddy when you tried to say they used a registration form on the weapons back in the late 1700's LOL.. (muster report) now please share with everyone your latest made up story once again??? :D :D :D :D

I didn't even say the first part so I'm going to ignore it.

First: Unfortunatly, my parents know how to use the computer and have 5 or 6 security layers up that I can't crack. And, if I did, they would know, so the risk isn't worth it.

For the rest of it - first off, wtfuck are you saying? Please use paragraphs or at least present a coherent argument. Then I'll respond.

Also - when did I lie? I gave you solid facts based upon historical data from the founding fathers. It came from an AP class, which uses an AP book, which is graded by the college board, which is accepted by all major universities. The notes I'm giving you is good information. You have yet to post a counter argument by the way.

As a last thought, please, please, use the quote button. It saves a lot of trouble for the rest of us.

You can hang somebody with a rope, should we be afraid of anyone who owns a rope?
As I said, those ill-thought out hypothetical questions never prove your point.

You can fight back if you're hit with a bat. Fill someone's stomach full of lead, and they're not going to get up.

I can understand the need for a small fire arm for self-protection or even a shotgun for hunting. Look at what happened to Australia when they banned all types of fire arms- the crime rate skyrocketed. But concerning M16A1's with rocket propelled grenade launchers, there is no need for them in public usage. :sniper: :mp5:

As I said, those ill-thought out hypothetical questions never prove your point.

You can fight back if you're hit with a bat. Fill someone's stomach full of lead, and they're not going to get up.
there your go!

I can understand the need for a small fire arm for self-protection or even a shotgun for hunting. Look at what happened to Australia when they banned all types of fire arms- the crime rate skyrocketed. But concerning M16A1's with rocket propelled grenade launchers, there is no need for them in public usage. :sniper: :mp5:

and i have no problem banning that bc they have no logical use for average citizens except for collecting in which case there should be a collectors licence or they should be dissabled like if you were to but a tank.

I can understand the need for a small fire arm for self-protection or even a shotgun for hunting. Look at what happened to Australia when they banned all types of fire arms- the crime rate skyrocketed. But concerning M16A1's with rocket propelled grenade launches, there is no need for them in public usage.
However much I'd like all firearms to be banned, I must be reasonable, and your post is the most logical one I've seen thus far.

and i have no problem banning that bc they have no logical use for average citizens except for collecting in which case there should be a collectors licence or they should be dissabled like if you were to but a tank.
But you've been saying throughout this entire thread that you think that semi automatics and automatics are a right.

If someone commits a gun crime... they own a gun. Therefore, I have reason enough to be afraid of gun owners.

Understand this: A LARGE MAJORITY OF GUN USES ARE IN HOME DEFENSE.

However, I also believe that many people buy guns out of fear, and fear is what drives this nation, which is not a good thing.

Now, that's just foolish. Weren't you ever in the Boy Scouts? Be prepared! America must not simply go aboput its business no matter what happens. America stands up and fights back.

"In order to buy milk, you must have money."

That "you" was that unnamed nonexistant individual. "You" served as "one."

"In order to buy milk, one must have money."

When you put it that way, I think it's quite clear that you were referring directly to mass murderer me.

I guess it's kind of a "Chicken and the Egg" thing. If we didn't have guns in the first place, then you wouldn't need one. But, it's illogical to simply remove all guns at once, as Jihad or whatever his name thinks, that people are going to come door to door and take them. A logical plan would entail the slow halt in sales of firearms and ammunitions. Sure, it would take a generation, but it'd make us a lot more like Europe- safer and gunless.

I'm sure that if we didn't have guns (an impossible liberal dream), crossbows would become the latest rage. People killed without guns for thousands of years, and they still do.

But a LOT of it does. 28% is a huge amount of people.
Please, take it in perspective.

Let's drop the gun debate and get to the real causes of crime and death:

Bigotry
Birth
Cain
Criminals
Dick Cheney. Isn't that corporate scumbag behind George W. Bush?
Eve
George W. Bush. Isn't that cowboy behind all our problems?
God
Humans
The infidels
Muhammad

The gun control issue is solved so easily from a Constitutional law perspective that it's amazing how frequent and fervent these discussions are.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first half, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means, "While (or if) a militia is necessary to protect a state (particularly against the tyranny of the national government)." The second half, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is fairly straightforward, and means that no law shall be made prohibiting the ownership of "arms." What the ammendment does not specify is that any arms may be held, thus laws regulated the type of weapons which may be owned are not in violation of the ammendment. It also does not specify under what condition a militia is considered necessary for the protection of a state. A strong argument could be made that militia are no longer necessary to protect the states and that to whatever extent they are necessary, the national guard, despite its non-local name acts effectively in that role. A strong argument could also be made that conditioning a right upon compliance with regulations, such as gun registration and background checks is not truly infringing on a person's right to keep or bear arms.

There is no particular reason why hunting rifles should be banned, and people who go to firing ranges to relax while firing hand guns should not be denied that right if they are responsible in their gun ownership. However, convicted criminals, especially those convicted of violent crimes with guns should not be allowed to own guns (the gunshow loop-hole which has been closed by some states whos gun crimes are now committed much more with guns purchased out of state, except California, allows criminals to purchase guns where they might not otherwise be able to). No reasonable argument could be made that the guns are necessary for the protection of the state against the tyranny of the national government or foreign powers, so the Constitutional protection does not apply.

Essentially the issue comes from people reading only the second half of the Ammendment and ignoring the condition the framers placed on the right to own a gun. We must protect the lives of all our citizens in balance with protecting the rights of gun owners, rather than simply dismissing one or the other as wrong and settling in one extreme.

If guns cause crime, women cause prostitution.

Women are kinda essential in most prostitution, but we'd have a really hard time banning women. While we're at it, we could ban humans, so we wouldn't have any crime at all.

Maybe you ought to ban handguns, but allow rifles and shotguns, which can be used for hunting. There are a lot of rifles and shotguns among the populace in Finland, but most violent crime is still done with fists, knifes and the occasional axe.

OE, thank you.

FF, disprove it if you can.

I'm sure that if we didn't have guns (an impossible liberal dream), crossbows would become the latest rage. People killed without guns for thousands of years, and they still do.

This is a fair point, but before guns and before our modern code of laws and enforcement crime was very different. It is not possible to easily compair the two and know what would happen if guns were removed from our society, but it is safe to assume that, with the efficiency of killing lowered the total deaths would also be lowered.

Let's drop the gun debate and get to the real causes of crime and death:

Bigotry
Birth
Cain
Criminals
Eve
God
The infidels
Muhammad

Oh do I hope you are kidding... Oh do I hope so sincerely.

The gun control issue is solved so easily from a Constitutional law perspective that it's amazing how frequent and fervent these discussions are.



The first half, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," means, "While (or if) a militia is necessary to protect a state (particularly against the tyranny of the national government)." The second half, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is fairly straightforward, and means that no law shall be made prohibiting the ownership of "arms." What the ammendment does not specify is that any arms may be held, thus laws regulated the type of weapons which may be owned are not in violation of the ammendment. It also does not specify under what condition a militia is considered necessary for the protection of a state. A strong argument could be made that militia are no longer necessary to protect the states and that to whatever extent they are necessary, the national guard, despite its non-local name acts effectively in that role. A strong argument could also be made that conditioning a right upon compliance with regulations, such as gun registration and background checks is not truly infringing on a person's right to keep or bear arms.

There is no particular reason why hunting rifles should be banned, and people who go to firing ranges to relax while firing hand guns should not be denied that right if they are responsible in their gun ownership. However, convicted criminals, especially those convicted of violent crimes with guns should not be allowed to own guns (the gunshow loop-hole which has been closed by some states whos gun crimes are now committed much more with guns purchased out of state, except California, allows criminals to purchase guns where they might not otherwise be able to). No reasonable argument could be made that the guns are necessary for the protection of the state against the tyranny of the national government or foreign powers, so the Constitutional protection does not apply.

Essentially the issue comes from people reading only the second half of the Ammendment and ignoring the condition the framers placed on the right to own a gun. We must protect the lives of all our citizens in balance with protecting the rights of gun owners, rather than simply dismissing one or the other as wrong and settling in one extreme.

in lousiana if you commit a fenoly which includes DUI your right to own a gun is automaticaly removed


"Originally Posted by Gaard
However, I also believe that many people buy guns out of fear, and fear is what drives this nation, which is not a good thing. "

we'll put a boot in your ass its the American way!

Women are kinda essential in most prostitution, but we'd have a really hard time banning women. While we're at it, we could ban humans, so we wouldn't have any crime at all.

Maybe you ought to ban handguns, but allow rifles and shotguns, which can be used for hunting. There are a lot of rifles and shotguns among the populace in Finland, but most violent crime is still done with fists, knifes and the occasional axe.

some people use hand guns for hunting as well

Understand this: A LARGE MAJORITY OF GUN USES ARE IN HOME DEFENSE.



Now, that's just foolish. Weren't you ever in the Boy Scouts?

As I have admitted, and however much I want the US to be more like the UK, the idea of removing all firearms in this country is indeed a fantasy, but I still remain firm on the point that people do not need automatics and semiautomatics.

Be prepared! America must not simply go aboput its business no matter what happens. America stands up and fights back.
Let's keep this domestic.

When you put it that way, I think it's quite clear that you were referring directly to mass murderer me.
Alas, the communication barriers of the internet.

People killed without guns for thousands of years, and they still do.
That's quite true, but I do not see why we should facilitate the people that want to kill with more dangerous weapons.


And a side note, when I was in Girl Scouts (No hard feelings on the gender thing, there's no way you could tell.) we pretty much learned how to cook and make things.

But you've been saying throughout this entire thread that you think that semi automatics and automatics are a right.

Ive been fighting for semiautos i didn't say full autos couldn't be baned, i believe that we have a right to own whatever kind we want, but i also can be reasonalble enough to now get angry over certain band like rocket launchers and such.

Maybe you ought to ban handguns, but allow rifles and shotguns, which can be used for hunting. There are a lot of rifles and shotguns among the populace in Finland, but most violent crime is still done with fists, knifes and the occasional axe.

The reason there aren't as many deaths from guns in Finland is, 1) people don't interact as much there as here, there simply aren't as many people packed densely into cities where they can get on each other's nerves, and 2) because every person there is trained in the proper use of a rifle and is taught from a young age that guns are extremely dangerous and how to prevent accidents.

As for allowing guns for hunting but banning hand guns: That's not entirely unreasonable, especially when you take into account the fact that longarms (rifles and shotguns) are much more effective for home defense than pistols because they are more intimidating and have more stopping power. That is just to add to the fact that they serve a purpose other than crime and hunting while pistols generally do not (though there are a few hunting pistols, like the .500 double action Smith and Wesson Revolver, but that's banned just about everywhere because it could kill a bear in a single shot and has no concievable purpose).

As I have admitted, and however much I want the US to be more like the UK, the idea of removing all firearms in this country is indeed a fantasy, but I still remain firm on the point that people do not need automatics and semiautomatics.




well guess what sparky, the US isn't the UK and thats wha makes it so great!

The reason there aren't as many deaths from guns in Finland is, 1) people don't interact as much there as here, there simply aren't as many people packed densely into cities where they can get on each other's nerves, and 2) because every person there is trained in the proper use of a rifle and is taught from a young age that guns are extremely dangerous and how to prevent accidents.

As for allowing guns for hunting but banning hand guns: That's not entirely unreasonable, especially when you take into account the fact that longarms (rifles and shotguns) are much more effective for home defense than pistols because they are more intimidating and have more stopping power. That is just to add to the fact that they serve a purpose other than crime and hunting while pistols generally do not (though there are a few hunting pistols, like the .500 double action Smith and Wesson Revolver, but that's banned just about everywhere because it could kill a bear in a single shot and has no concievable purpose).

yeah if anyone breaks into my house i have a 12 guage along with various knifes close by lol

well guess what sparky, the US isn't the UK and thats wha makes it so great!

Really I think it's the things we are that make us great more than the things we aren't. Not being like, for instance, Europe, is not necessary a good thing, though it might be seen as good from some perspectives. Too often the sort of people who support a black and white interpretation of the second ammendment and support no regulations on guns also have this "us and them" mentality that drives me nuts. I'm not saying you in particular have that mentality, but I just can't help thinking that from what you said.

And a side note, when I was in Girl Scouts (No hard feelings on the gender thing, there's no way you could tell.) we pretty much learned how to cook and make things.

i got no problem with girl scouts yall have darn good cookies! but i am a boy scout and we do get to shoot in it, there are stricter rules than when me and my buddies go out to shoot but its a good place to learn

Really I think it's the things we are that make us great more than the things we aren't. Not being like, for instance, Europe, is not necessary a good thing, though it might be seen as good from some perspectives. Too often the sort of people who support a black and white interpretation of the second ammendment and support no regulations on guns also have this "us and them" mentality that drives me nuts. I'm not saying you in particular have that mentality, but I just can't help thinking that from what you said.

im just proud to live in America

well guess what sparky, the US isn't the UK and thats wha makes it so great!
Yes. Having higher standards of living is a terrible thing. Gee, I'm glad I live in America. Where else would I get my social inequality?

im just proud to live in America

I'm glad to live in the U.S. but it seems a little petty and silly to be proud of something as out of my control as my place of birth.

Yes. Having higher standards of living is a terrible thing. Gee, I'm glad I live in America. Where else would I get my social inequality?

Western Asia, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe. Take your pick.

Yes. Having higher standards of living is a terrible thing. Gee, I'm glad I live in America. Where else would I get my social inequality?
if you dont like it your free to move, we dont have laws like cuba keeping you here, go on and enjoy your own utopia in the UK ill pray for you

I'm glad to live in the U.S. but it seems a little petty and silly to be proud of something as out of my control as my place of birth.
Well God blessed me to live here and its something i dont want to take for granted

Well God blessed me to live here and its something i dont want to take for granted

Again, gladness is appropriate, but not pride. You might be proud of the accomplishments of your fellow citizens, or even better, proud of your own accomplishments in the name of your country, but being proud for being born somewhere doesn't really make any sense.

Yes. Having higher standards of living is a terrible thing. Gee, I'm glad I live in America. Where else would I get my social inequality?

If you like the U.K. better, move there. Labour's in power at the moment.

Again, gladness is appropriate, but not pride. You might be proud of the accomplishments of your fellow citizens, or even better, proud of your own accomplishments in the name of your country, but being proud for being born somewhere doesn't really make any sense.

I can still be proud i live here but supporting it, bc im proud to be an american where at least i know im free

Paxania ive been waiting to here someting from you again, your on fire tonight, you should speak at the republican convention, lol

I can still be proud i live here but supporting it, bc im proud to be an american where at least i know im free

We're still having a problem with the difference between proud and glad. I'm glad that I'm free, but I've got nothing to be proud of; I didn't make myself free and I didn't make anyone else free, it was entirely out of my control, so why should I be proud of it?

We're still having a problem with the difference between proud and glad. I'm glad that I'm free, but I've got nothing to be proud of; I didn't make myself free and I didn't make anyone else free, it was entirely out of my control, so why should I be proud of it?
i get what your saying but im kinda looking at it like if you get a new car you wanna show it off, even if you didnt by it, its just human nature

Western Asia, Africa, South America, Eastern Europe. Take your pick.
Of course you know I was being sarcastic.

If you like the U.K. better, move there. Labour's in power at the moment.
I plan on moving to Canada, France, England, but there's that whole money issue.

But it's a pity how Blair hijacked the Labour party. There's absolutely no chance that he'll be elected again. And it'll take a few years for his party to recover.

i get what your saying but im kinda looking at it like if you get a new car you wanna show it off, even if you didnt by it, its just human nature

If you get a new car, you show it off because it says to everyone who sees it "hey look, I'm so good I earned this car," whether that means you earned the money to buy the car or your parents felt you were deserving of the money, or whatever, doesn't matter. I suppose that a similar argument could be made for being born in a certain place, going back to your position that God chose you to be born here, that you could be showing off the favor shown you by God, but even then I'm not sure pride is the right word for it.

If you get a new car, you show it off because it says to everyone who sees it "hey look, I'm so good I earned this car," whether that means you earned the money to buy the car or your parents felt you were deserving of the money, or whatever, doesn't matter. I suppose that a similar argument could be made for being born in a certain place, going back to your position that God chose you to be born here, that you could be showing off the favor shown you by God, but even then I'm not sure pride is the right word for it.
yeah ok i can agree i guess proud is just used as an expression

yeah ok i can agree i guess proud is just used as an expression

Yeah. I just have fun picking apart common speech and treating it literally. Sometimes I take it to meaningless extremes I think, but sometimes it's a lot of fun.

im just proud to live in America


Good for you Jhas!

I understand that gun control is a very sensitive issue in the USA. Especially because of the 2nd ammendment. A similar issue in the UK is hunting with dogs (fox hunting). This is a sensitive issue here in the UK.

Most farmers want fox population to be controlled to protect sheep / chickens etc. However, at the end of the day the people who go hunting on horses with hounds, do it because they enjoy the thrill of the chase.

But just to add my twopenny worth in to this discussion -

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." (Can't remember which film that is from).

Gun law in other countries where hunting is popular is similar to that of USA. eg Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Austrailia etc.

However, the USA ranks highest in % deaths through guns by population.

Why is this???

Someone earlier in this thread stated that it is because of fear. A point also made by Michael Moore (don't forget he is part of the NRA) in Bowling for Columbine.

I would support this view, and several people have also agreed with it without realising. eg

"I keep a gun in the house in case I get broken into" - eg fear
"We'll put a boot up your ass" FEAR etc

This is also the reason why USA foreign policy is so aggressive.

Most USA troop deployment / armed intervention in recent times has been because of fear.

eg - Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq (twice - 1st to fund Saddam to fight Iran, secondly to get rid of Saddam - nice touch!), Korea, Libya, etc.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with these actions (so lets not start discussing it in this thread). I am just providing a possible root cause of the action.

:-)

Yeah. I just have fun picking apart common speech and treating it literally. Sometimes I take it to meaningless extremes I think, but sometimes it's a lot of fun.
lol, its also funny how the mood has lightined, i guess we're all getting tired. lol i was supposed to be studying for civics but i guess this counts

Good for you Jhas!

I understand that gun control is a very sensitive issue in the USA. Especially because of the 2nd ammendment. A similar issue in the UK is hunting with dogs (fox hunting). This is a sensitive issue here in the UK.

Most farmers want fox population to be controlled to protect sheep / chickens etc. However, at the end of the day the people who go hunting on horses with hounds, do it because they enjoy the thrill of the chase.

But just to add my twopenny worth in to this discussion -

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people." (Can't remember which film that is from).

Gun law in other countries where hunting is popular is similar to that of USA. eg Canada, Finland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, Austrailia etc.

However, the USA ranks highest in % deaths through guns by population.

Why is this???

Someone earlier in this thread stated that it is because of fear. A point also made by Michael Moore (don't forget he is part of the NRA) in Bowling for Columbine.

I would support this view, and several people have also agreed with it without realising. eg

"I keep a gun in the house in case I get broken into" - eg fear
"We'll put a boot up your ass" FEAR etc

This is also the reason why USA foreign policy is so aggressive.

Most USA troop deployment / armed intervention in recent times has been because of fear.

eg - Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq (twice - 1st to fund Saddam to fight Iran, secondly to get rid of Saddam - nice touch!), Korea, Libya, etc.

I am not saying I agree or disagree with these actions (so lets not start discussing it in this thread). I am just providing a possible root cause of the action.

:-)

are u going with me or againt me i cant really tell
and i dont care if mich. moore is in the nra he is a liberal whore
(im not being rude to you so please dont view it as that)

Alright, time to lower the general mood again and stir up heated debate.

My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car!

Alright, time to lower the general mood again and stir up heated debate.

My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car!
lol dern straight! cars kill more people than guns but we havent tried (realistlcly) banning them yet

lol, its also funny how the mood has lightined, i guess we're all getting tired. lol i was supposed to be studying for civics but i guess this counts

Everybody gets all tense when they start discussing things like this, it's no good. I do my best thinking when I'm relaxed and kidding around, but my natural instinct is to tighten up when people talk about serious things.

To go off topic for a moment, if Max Barry pays for the server space on Jolt, why do we still have to look at these obnoxious ads?

Alright, time to lower the general mood again and stir up heated debate.
Hehheh, I think we've exaughsted a lot of our arguments.

lol dern straight! cars kill more people than guns but we havent tried (realistlcly) banning them yet

My car gets me to work every day. You give me a gun that'll do that and I'll stop trying to restrict your right to own it. Of course, there are restrictions on who can drive a car, though there are none on who can own one. It has been my strong belief that a person should not be allowed to carry a gun, or possibly even own a gun until they have taken and passed a course on gun safety and a test to get a gun liscense like a drivers' liscense.

Hehheh, I think we've exaughsted a lot of our arguments.

Oh, I have arguments galore. GALORE, I SAY!

I'm off to bed (maybe), but before I go I'd like to make an amusing note: I have over 40 times as many posts as the other people engaged in this conversation right now.

My car gets me to work every day. You give me a gun that'll do that and I'll stop trying to restrict your right to own it. Of course, there are restrictions on who can drive a car, though there are none on who can own one. It has been my strong belief that a person should not be allowed to carry a gun, or possibly even own a gun until they have taken and passed a course on gun safety and a test to get a gun liscense like a drivers' liscense.
like i said earlier the NRA has created a hunters ed course which is required to get a hunting licience here in lousiana
and as far as getting to work on a gun i have two theories
1) if you lived in the bad projects you might need it, lol
2) you could fly on it like a broom

Oh, I have arguments galore. GALORE, I SAY!
As long as they can wait until morning. It's like 3:30 AM in New York. So bon soir, everyone. May your dreams be filled with... gun controll issues.

Michael Moore has more money, but is he credible?

I'm off to bed (maybe), but before I go I'd like to make an amusing note: I have over 40 times as many posts as the other people engaged in this conversation right now.
dadgum u do

As long as they can wait until morning. It's like 3:30 AM in New York. So bon soir, everyone. May your dreams be filled with... gun controll issues.

3:30 in Philadelphia. Good night.

good discussions yall

I can understand the need for a small fire arm for self-protection or even a shotgun for hunting. Look at what happened to Australia when they banned all types of fire arms- the crime rate skyrocketed. But concerning M16A1's with rocket propelled grenade launchers, there is no need for them in public usage. :sniper: :mp5:
Hrm, there's a few things wrong with this statement about Australia.

First of all, the legislation didn't ban guns, it simply strengthened the licencing requirements. Even today an urban citizen can get a category A licence which allows them to own a shotgun (of course, now, as before 1996, if you used it to defend yourself from a violent home invader, you'd be in deep crap).

Secondly, most people in Australia didn't use a gun for self defence before the legislation. We were not like the US where it was common for people to own a gun for self defence. The reason for this was simple: even though it was easier to own a gun back then, the law was still very unforgiving on the use of a gun on a person, even if it was in self defence.

Thirdly, the violent crime statistics are ambiguous at best. Even before the new firearms legislation there was a rising violent crime rate, and that has simply continued (in some cases it has turned around). If you look here: http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/acfbfd6ba9eb3689ca256cae001052a7?OpenDocument
you'll see what I mean about it being ambiguous.

I do agree, however, that in the US if you restricted firearms the crime incidence would certainly rise, simply because in the US firearms are more often used in defence than they were in Australia. I'm just saying that you can't use the Australian case as evidence for the US case because the social situations concerning gun use (then in Australia and now in the US) are so different.

Understand this: A LARGE MAJORITY OF GUN USES ARE IN HOME DEFENSE. :rolleyes: Same bullshit thats every NRA nutjob has been screaming for years, truth is statistics show that the 'Home Defense Weapon' you might own has a much greater chance of inflicting injury or death on a family member or being used in a crime than it has of ever being used for it's intended purpose. 'Home Defense weapons' are almost never used for home defense.

Do I have to call in a bunch of friends who defended themselves with firearms?

Do I have to call in a bunch of friends who defended themselves with firearms?From what? each other?

do u hunt duck or dove? yes you don't need one but it makes it a lot easier.
you said hunt hunting would imply an effort where as getting a flak gun and shooting at a flock of course your going to hit them easy kill is not hunting

The streets are not awash with blood...

The streets are not awash with blood...yet.....

If guns cause crime, women cause prostitution.

maybe women do cause prostitution otherwise bunch of guntooting hillbillies would go out raping women?

?

...

Erm...no? I think?

Stay on topic.

how about man with gun attacks you at home you are law abidingcitizen and the only reason you have your gun is to scare off more clowns with their guns.So they get a more lethal weapon to do the job(to pay for their crack) so you need a better weapon to protect yourself.
Answer you have the right to protect yourself and its not about owning or not owning guns but controling guns you shouldnt have to carry guns to protect yourself but you do make sure you dont have to and you dont have a problem protection wise.
Hunting is sport and so it should be fair the animal should have a chance to get away full automatic wouldnt give it that surely there are huntingrifles.dah.
In New Zealand the cops have guns in their patrol cars locked in gun cabinets dont carry them around we have an armed offenders squad (like SWAT)who get called out and take out bad guys :sniper:
I think people can own ak47 and m16 etc but regulations only allow 6 round magazine or something so you couldnt use to great effect unless of course you were breaking the law

Hey, news for everyone. Read the second amendment carefully. The government has the right to regulate whatever firearms it damn well pleases.

"well regulated militia" means they've practiced how to shoot, not that they can only use a bolt-action rifle.

yet.....

Look, there are zero laws on the books as far as gun control goes in the state of Vermont.

Don't hear too much about the "Wild West Shootouts" there, do ya? There's a reason for that. Gun control never works. All the studies done for the US show that violent crime goes down when law-abiding citizens can arm themselves. Yes, it IS that simple.

I don't think handguns should be allowed to the general public, along with other small concealable weapons. The type of things gangs and criminals use, it's hard to rob a store or shoot up a school with a .308 bolt action rifle.

People should be allowed to have hunting rifles and shotguns. For home defense, any kind of shotgun does well, good stopping power and no overpenetration.

For defending against the tyrannical state, hunting rifles do fine. You can kill tyranicall troops with one from 500 meters away with ease, just like Jackson from saving private ryan. Stuff like Garands would be okay too.

My feeling on gun control is this:

Your reasons for wanting to own a gun, and the second ammendment are irrelevant. All that should matter is whether or not you want to own a gun or not. If you want to buy a gun so that you can go shoot people, that is fine. Owning a gun in and of itself is, as far as I'm concerned, as of much legal concern as owning a CD or a fridge.

However, if you use a gun to commit a crime, then you should be punished. After all, you have committed a crime. Crimes are punished. If you own a gun and commit no crime, then how can control of your gun be a question of legislation? Commit crime, be punished. Commit no crime, remain unpunished. It's that simple. Owning or not owning a gun is irrelevant.

I don't think handguns should be allowed to the general public, along with other small concealable weapons. The type of things gangs and criminals use, it's hard to rob a store or shoot up a school with a .308 bolt action rifle.

People should be allowed to have hunting rifles and shotguns. For home defense, any kind of shotgun does well, good stopping power and no overpenetration.

For defending against the tyrannical state, hunting rifles do fine. You can kill tyranicall troops with one from 500 meters away with ease, just like Jackson from saving private ryan. Stuff like Garands would be okay too.

500 meters away with ease? Obviously, you are a sniper, and are perpetually surrounded by other snipers, otherwise, you would realize that only a very small portion of the populace can perform that particular feat with ease.

Don't believe what you see in the movies. Shooting at long range is rarely easy.

Concealable weapons are a deterrent to crime. Otherwise, why would the violent crime stats of every state that has adopted shall-issue concealed carry gone down??? Because they have been used to actually STOP crimes in progress.

My feeling on gun control is this:

Your reasons for wanting to own a gun, and the second ammendment are irrelevant. All that should matter is whether or not you want to own a gun or not. If you want to buy a gun so that you can go shoot people, that is fine. Owning a gun in and of itself is, as far as I'm concerned, as of much legal concern as owning a CD or a fridge.

However, if you use a gun to commit a crime, then you should be punished. After all, you have committed a crime. Crimes are punished. If you own a gun and commit no crime, then how can control of your gun be a question of legislation? Commit crime, be punished. Commit no crime, remain unpunished. It's that simple. Owning or not owning a gun is irrelevant.

I am SO in agreement with this perspective.

Once again, I find myself explaining Australia's Arms Laws to our friends in the US.

Contrary to popular belief, guns are NOT banned in Australia.

Semi-Auto Longarms and Pump Action Shotguns are out for 99% of the population, but it's still entirely possible (and not that difficult) for normal people to apply for a firearms licence and own guns.

Category A&B weapons (Non-self loading .22s, and single/double barrel/lever action shotguns, bolt, lever, and pump action centrefire rifles, and muskets) can be obtained fairly easily, provided you have a Permit to Acquire from the Police and a Gun Licence. You're supposed to use your firearms "regularly", but the police are usually too busy to check, so at the moment once a year counts as "regularly". There are plenty of shooting clubs where you can use A&B weapons.

Even Handguns (up to .38 calibre) can be owned by sports shooters, but you can't carry them anywhere, take them hunting, or do anything else with them except shoot them on the range (which makes sense in a strange kind of way).

The Licencing procedure is thorough and time consuming. Farmers can own Pump Action Shotuns and Semi-Auto .22 rifles, and some of them can have Semi-Auto Longarms- SLRs and the like, if they have a serious vertebrate pest problem.

Collectors can own anything they like, but all the fun stuff (Machine Guns, AK-47s, etc) has to be rendered permanently inoperable.

Has it made Australia safer? I doubt it. As an earlier poster said, using a gun to defend yourself just isnt the done thing in Australia- shoot someone, even if you legally own the gun and had a good reason for having it loaded at the time- and you can expect to go to jail, self-defence notwithstanding (they get you for breaching the Weapons Act).

I am of the opinion that people should be allowed whatever they like without restriction, but I know I'm in the minority.

New Zealand has excellent gun laws- pretty much everything except Full Autos are legal for licenced people to own (Military Semi-autos need a special licence), and you can count the number of people who get shot each year in NZ on one hand and have fingers to spare.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns...

how about man with gun attacks you at home you are law abidingcitizen and the only reason you have your gun is to scare off more clowns with their guns.So they get a more lethal weapon to do the job(to pay for their crack) so you need a better weapon to protect yourself.
Answer you have the right to protect yourself and its not about owning or not owning guns but controling guns you shouldnt have to carry guns to protect yourself but you do make sure you dont have to and you dont have a problem protection wise.

Look, just stop talking. You don't get it.

Hunting is sport and so it should be fair the animal should have a chance to get away full automatic wouldnt give it that surely there are huntingrifles.dah.

Who would go hunting with full automatic? Hunitng rifles are fine. They are powerful, long-range, and accurate. Besides, I'm not pushing for automatic weapons, I want all mean-looking semi-automatic weapons to be legal again.

In New Zealand the cops have guns in their patrol cars locked in gun cabinets dont carry them around we have an armed offenders squad (like SWAT)who get called out and take out bad guys :sniper:

New Zealand? Isn't that in an unstable part of the world that's full of dictatorships?

I think people can own ak47 and m16 etc but regulations only allow 6 round magazine or something so you couldnt use to great effect unless of course you were breaking the law

Well that's not much fun! Why even own one? In America, we can own semi-automatic weapons (fire once and automatically reload - theoretically banned, but the gun is easily legalised with a few minor cosmetic changes and a diferent name) with magazines of up to 10 rounds. The number is completely arbitrary; the average number of shots fired in a criminal attack is 3.5.

What do the gun banners think is so bad about a semi-automatic shot gun. You would have to pry the guns from my cold dead fingers.

Who am I to tell you? I'm a citizen of the United States of America, and I have a damn right to be safe.

I also have the damn right to be safe and if you walk in my house in the middle of the night and I miss the first time.... Watch the hell out cause there are 29 still coming your way. That is just me... My wife will have her 9 or 10 in you also :D Hope you don't walk into my son's room cause he will probably pump a few in you too :D

Aint America Grand :D

The streets are not awash with blood...

We're pretty good at cleaning it up, but there is a lot of blood spilled in this country with guns. We have tens of thousands of gun deaths annually. It's like we're fighting a civil war.

600,000 people died in the Civil War.

As I have admitted, and however much I want the US to be more like the UK, the idea of removing all firearms in this country is indeed a fantasy, but I still remain firm on the point that people do not need automatics and semiautomatics.


Since the UK banned most guns their level of firearm crime went up.

That's because what no-one on this thread has yet mentioned is that banning something DOES NOT stop criminals getting it!

All you do by "banning" guns is give criminals a huge advantage. Then only criminals and the police have guns, and criminals know that all their victims are helpless.

How well is the War on Drugs going by the way? Those bans stopped the supply of drugs, right?


That's quite true, but I do not see why we should facilitate the people that want to kill with more dangerous weapons.


Nope, we should let the public who might need to defend themselves against these people have firearms themselves.

Criminals will always have guns, taking away the right to firearms simply "facilitates" the criminals by removing any danger from their work.

Craig

I don't think handguns should be allowed to the general public, along with other small concealable weapons. The type of things gangs and criminals use, it's hard to rob a store or shoot up a school with a .308 bolt action rifle.


Uh huh, and banning handguns will keep gangs getting them... how?

Do you think all the gang members go apply for a CCW?

Name: Joe Bloggs
Occupation: Gang Hitman

I don't think so.

One thought: Does banning drugs keep gangs from getting them?

All you do by banning pistols is let the gangs keep them, but now they know that no-one can fire back. I bet the gangs would LOVE a blanket ban on guns. It would be christmas, no one to stop them, and all thanks to the government.

Craig

FACT, effective gun control will lower the number of people dying by guns.

FACT, effective gun control will lower the number of people dying by guns.

And makeing it mandatory for everyone but a convicted felon to carry so kind of weapon will reduce it more. Because ALOT of people are not going to attack you if they know they are going to be shot.

FACT, effective gun control will lower the number of people dying by guns.

No, not a fact, your opinion.

And a pretty crap opinion at that when you look at which US cities have the biggest handgun murder rate. I'll give you a hint, they are the ones where handguns are banned.

Craig

you said hunt hunting would imply an effort where as getting a flak gun and shooting at a flock of course your going to hit them easy kill is not hunting

i dont hunt just for sport i also hunt for food and you can fill your freezer a lot easier with a an auto

maybe women do cause prostitution otherwise bunch of guntooting hillbillies would go out raping women?

im offended by that, i live in the freakin south and im proud, and i know im becoming a pretty big redneck but i have no intentions of ever raping a women or assulting them in ANY way, you came say that down here to some ones face and see how long it takes them to kick your ass!

Hunting is sport and so it should be fair the animal should have a chance to get away full automatic wouldnt give it that surely there are huntingrifles.dah.

i dont care if the animal has a chance, it becomes dinner if it gets in the way of my gun but to make you happy when your duck hunting or any fowel hunting i can think of you can only have 3 shots in your gun anyway so your dadgum animal has 3 chances (if only one person is shooting) to get away. PLUS who would freakin hunt with a full automatic, we're talkin about semiautos, dont u know the difference?

If any weapons SHOULD be banned -and I'm not saying they should- it should be pistols. No weapon is more dangerous than a concealed weapon.

I don't think handguns should be allowed to the general public, along with other small concealable weapons. The type of things gangs and criminals use, it's hard to rob a store or shoot up a school with a .308 bolt action rifle.

People should be allowed to have hunting rifles and shotguns. For home defense, any kind of shotgun does well, good stopping power and no overpenetration.

For defending against the tyrannical state, hunting rifles do fine. You can kill tyranicall troops with one from 500 meters away with ease, just like Jackson from saving private ryan. Stuff like Garands would be okay too.

the guns those types of people use (gangs and such) are normally bought in the black market, so puting on a gun ban would do absoulty nothing because those guns are already ileagally owned

Name: Joe Bloggs
Occupation: Gang Hitman

lol

If any weapons SHOULD be banned -and I'm not saying they should- it should be pistols. No weapon is more dangerous than a concealed weapon.

They are very dangerous for rapists and muggers.

Remember that if you support banning pistols, the only two groups left with them are criminals and police.

Bans only stop law-abiding citizens, not muggers or murderers.

Why does Washington, D.C., a district whose laws make it illegal to buy, possess, transport or acquire a handgun, experience the highest per capita murder rates in the nation?

Craig

:-) Just found this gem:

A father recently sent me the following letter: "I had to go to work unexpectedly one night due to an emergency. My 8-year-old daughter was a little worried that I would be leaving her and my wife alone. We live in a very nice and safe neighborhood but nonetheless she was concerned. I jokingly told her that no bad men would come in our house because I put out a sign that read, 'No Bad Men Allowed.' She frowned and immediately responded, 'Daddy, bad men don't do what the signs say. That's why they're bad.'"

Some things are so complicated only a child can figure them out.

Craig

600,000 people died in the Civil War.

That many people die every 20 years in the U.S. from guns. We're fighting one Gettysburg scale battle every year.

With the free trade agreements, there's no use in banning guns as they are smuggled to criminals through Mexico. Besides, even if you did track down and destroy every single gun, people can always make spud guns with plastic tubing, slash with katanas and broadswords, and break bones with Kung Fu, not mentioning that any household item can be a potential weapon.

I'm glad I don't live in a gun crazed country.

I can see that various trolls, gun control nuts and rednecks are already on this tread, so I'll add a little bit as well..... <G>


IMHO, America has the _worst_ of both worlds - it either needs to take the guns out of society; OR make gun possession manditory.


Here in Australia, we have _always_ had tighter gun control (which has produced a lower gun-inflicted crime rate), but various studes (i.e. Lott-Mustard) have shown that _increasing_ gun possession (esp. "concealed carry" permits) can actually _reduce_ crime and gun deaths.

But I expect by now that a _majority_ of people following this thread have already started ignoring those who don't prescribe to their own POV, so I'll shut up now......

That many people die every 20 years in the U.S. from guns. We're fighting one Gettysburg scale battle every year.

And what proof do you have that this is true?

If any weapons SHOULD be banned -and I'm not saying they should- it should be pistols. No weapon is more dangerous than a concealed weapon.

And just what exactly makes a concealed weapon any more likely to kill or wound something/somebody?

Nothing. It's the person who uses it that makes all the difference. There are low estimates of 82,000 to high estimates of 2.5 million violent crimes stopped due to a firearm being wielded by a law-abiding citizen in the US per year.

Even if we have 20,000 deaths (this is a number I just picked, I think it's higher than the actual stat--yup, it is--1999 it was 10,282 homicides using firearms....) by firearms in the US, at the minimum, 4 times that number are saved. Fair trade in my book. If you take the guns away, you get a minimum 82,000 violent crimes more (up to 2.5 million!), just to "save" 20,000 (btw, a large number of that 20,000 are actually criminals being shot by other criminals, not the law-abiding public--again, not a major loss in my book).

I can see that various trolls, gun control nuts and rednecks are already on this tread, so I'll add a little bit as well..... <G>



i hope u are not trashing rednecks thats a good way to get hit up side your head, im tellin you i used to really like Australia but yall are totally trashing my view.

No, not a fact, your opinion.

And a pretty crap opinion at that when you look at which US cities have the biggest handgun murder rate. I'll give you a hint, they are the ones where handguns are banned.

Craig
There are cities in the US where guns are "banned"?

Can you name a few for me?

Gary, Indiana.

hell no guys, nobody takes my guns from me if i want a gun, i wanan buy whatever gun i damn well please, be it single action, semi-auto, or full auto. the government aughta just leave guns, and the 2nd ammendment alone.
:sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper:

Bump

Bump

"well regulated militia" means they've practiced how to shoot, not that they can only use a bolt-action rifle.


Umm. . .thats a well practiced militia, not a well regulated one.

From Webster's II, Office Edition

regulate - v 1. To direct or control in agreement with rules or laws. 2. To adjust the amount, rate, or flow of.

So, according to that, a regulated militia is one that is controled by an outside force (i.e. government).

If someone tried to take my gun (I don't have one, but if I did), they would get their head blown off.

They could take my gun, of course, but they'd have to pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that is doesn't have to be used until they try to take it away." - Thomas Jefferson

600,000 people died in the Civil War.

More have died from gun crime.
Earlier a statistic from the NRA was being thrown around that guns are only used in 27 percent of violent crimes. Okay, I'll believe that. But the term "violent crime" is far too inclusive. Does anyone have any stats on what percent of *deadly* crime involves guns? I'm willing to bet that it's a lot higher. Not that 27% is a small figure.

Here's a statistic I've heard spouted over and over, and I believe it's true too: Your registered gun is more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal.

Guns kill people. Cars kill people. Cars however are not designed to kill people. They have a practical use. The only reason your average citizen has to own a gun is that they can see themselves using it to shoot someone. I'm not talking about hunters here; if you think you need a gun to hunt with, I may not agree, but I'm also not entirely opposed. But you should also have a hunting license. I'd be fine if a hunting license was required for gun ownership.

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This was written at a time when the US military was a citizen militia; of course they wanted to keep them armed. And regulated. You (gun owners) are not a militia. And if you consider yourselves as such, you should be regulated as such.

There are cities in the US where guns are "banned"?

Can you name a few for me?

You claimed that "effective gun control" would (as a "fact") reduce crime.

In the following cases, bans on handguns has done nothing to stop handgun murders:


Washington D.C:

"The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that other arms, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or
equipped with trigger locks."

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20040114-112126-4507r.htm

New York City:

"A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city."

Which means that CCW is permitted in New York state, but not in NYC. And the "special permits" are only issued to a few select favorites, there were 3389 permits in Aug 2002 http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/newsday.html

Look up the number of firearm homicides in those two cities.

Craig

Gary, Indiana.

Hehe, 10th most dangerous city in the USA!

http://www.morganquitno.com/cit04pop.htm

600,000 people died in the Civil War.
More have died from gun crime.

It's nice to provide a timespan for relativity.

Earlier a statistic from the NRA was being thrown around that guns are only used in 27 percent of violent crimes. Okay, I'll believe that. But the term "violent crime" is far too inclusive. Does anyone have any stats on what percent of *deadly* crime involves guns? I'm willing to bet that it's a lot higher. Not that 27% is a small figure.

That's an FBI statistic, actually. As I recall, violent crime is murder, attempted murder, robbery, and aggravated assault.

Here's a statistic I've heard spouted over and over, and I believe it's true too: Your registered gun is more likely to shoot a family member than a criminal.

I want a verifiable source. When I say that the FBI reported that guns were used in 27% of violent crimes in 2002, people can go out and find that report from the FBI. When you say something abstract like that, I'll have some difficulty verifying it.

Guns kill people. Cars kill people. Cars however are not designed to kill people. They have a practical use. The only reason your average citizen has to own a gun is that they can see themselves using it to shoot someone. I'm not talking about hunters here; if you think you need a gun to hunt with, I may not agree, but I'm also not entirely opposed. But you should also have a hunting license. I'd be fine if a hunting license was required for gun ownership.

Recreation, home defense, and competition are also fine pastimes.

The 2nd amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This was written at a time when the US military was a citizen militia; of course they wanted to keep them armed. And regulated. You (gun owners) are not a militia. And if you consider yourselves as such, you should be regulated as such.

The Founding Fathers wanted the armed citizenry separate from government so they would be able to overthrow it. It's not a very complicated idea.

Listen I think all these gun control laws are crazy, I mean how the hell am I supposed to shoot elephants if i cant own a Barret M82 .50 cal BMG sniper rife? And how can u kill a rhino effectivly without armor piercing ammuniton. Come on this is ludicrous we need looser gun regulations ASAP!!!!! :sniper: :mp5:

I want a verifiable source. When I say that the FBI reported that guns were used in 27% of violent crimes in 2002, people can go out and find that report from the FBI. When you say something abstract like that, I'll have some difficulty verifying it. :rolleyes: It's simple, compare statistics for accidental shootings and family gun violence with the number of citizen/criminal shootings. Even the NRA is concerned about the statistics for the former, while the later is almost non-existant.The Founding Fathers wanted the armed citizenry separate from government so they would be able to overthrow it. It's not a very complicated idea.But it is highly debatable that your interpretation is the correct one. You hold what is the minority opinion.

Most centerfire rifles are "armor-piercing." Bullet-proof vests were designed to slow handgun bullets.

But it is highly debatable that your interpretation is the correct one.

The key word is "overthrow". The government must never rule the people. The Second Amendment is there for a reason that was clarified in 1982 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm).

You hold what is the minority opinion.

Ever hear the expression about what is right not always being popular?

The key word is "overthrow". The government must never rule the people. The Second Amendment is there for a reason that was clarified in 1982 (http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm). I sub-committee report headed by Strom Thurmond does not equal congressional clarification. Sub commitees can and do say whatever they want, unless congress agrees it's meaningless.



Ever hear the expression about what is right not always being popular?The point is not about what you think the founding Fathers intended. That's actually moot since they designed the constitution to be a living document subject to the interpretation and conventions of the times. Current interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not include insuring the populace has the firepower to overthrow the government no matter how much you wish it was so. Case closed.

The point is not about what you think the founding Fathers intended. That's actually moot since they designed the constitution to be a living document subject to the interpretation and conventions of the times. Current interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not include insuring the populace has the firepower to overthrow the government no matter how much you wish it was so. Case closed.

You can't close the case, but you can rest your own. I recommend you burn it so it never troubles us again.

The Founding Fathers certainly would not want us interpreting the Constitution however we want; in the words of Barry Goldwater, "the same principles which guided our Republic through its early days will work equally well for us." The Founding Fathers wanted the government entirely accountable to the people, and if that meant a popular uprising, so be it. By any other interpretation, they would be hypocrites.

Feel free to concede the argument any day now...

You can't close the case, but you can rest your own. I recommend you burn it so it never troubles us again.

The Founding Fathers certainly would not want us interpreting the Constitution however we want; in the words of Barry Goldwater, "the same principles which guided our Republic through its early days will work equally well for us." The Founding Fathers wanted the government entirely accountable to the people, and if that meant a popular uprising, so be it. By any other interpretation, they would be hypocrites.

Feel free to concede the argument any day now...You still don't get it do you. What the founding fathers wanted is immaterial. They designed the constitution to evolve and adapt, to be subject to current interpretation and convention because they knew if it did not it would not be able to endure. You have to go by current interpretation, all else is meaningless.

If you want to redefine the Constitution, amend it.

The Founding Fathers wanted the armed citizenry separate from government so they would be able to overthrow it. It's not a very complicated idea.
for the purpose of creating militias: a state run and controlled "military' so to say, and dont give me the bullshit about that being part of government, at the time of the founders, the states were not the same as the federal government, they were seperare entities

If you want to redefine the Constitution, amend it.Face reality, the constitution is subject to interpretation, thats one of the major reasons we have a judicial branch of government. You're the one who wants to redefine it, from the current interpretation to what you think it should be.

Once again, I find myself explaining Australia's Arms Laws to our friends in the US.

Contrary to popular belief, guns are NOT banned in Australia.

...

I am of the opinion that people should be allowed whatever they like without restriction, but I know I'm in the minority.

New Zealand has excellent gun laws- pretty much everything except Full Autos are legal for licenced people to own (Military Semi-autos need a special licence), and you can count the number of people who get shot each year in NZ on one hand and have fingers to spare.

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns...
Wow, I almost entirely agree with you. It's nice to see a fellow Australian who thinks like I do.

Hey, news for everyone. Read the second amendment carefully. The government has the right to regulate whatever firearms it damn well pleases.

Now wouldn't that INFRINGE on the right to keep & bear arms? In the language of the times, well regulated meant capable of hitting the target consistantly. A good idea for a Militia! Too bad we aren't allowed to HAVE Militias anymore... Now we have a Federal Army instead. The Second indulged in a bit of prophecy; no Militia, no free state...

I was raised on a farm numbnuts, I can deal with killing animals. If you wanna hunt, make it a little sporting. I'm so tired of lazy SOB's who have no skill and whine because they need a semi-auto. You'll get no sympathy from me, real hunting is done with a bow.

I quite agree! It was an amazing bit of bull to link the right to bear arms to hunting. That certainly was NOT why the Second Amendment was written! Deer are no threat to a free state, tyrannical Federal government is!

So when I'm gonna get meh rocket propelled grenade launcher eh? I gots to protect my 9 kids, ye know.

I sub-committee report headed by Strom Thurmond does not equal congressional clarification. Sub commitees can and do say whatever they want, unless congress agrees it's meaningless.



The point is not about what you think the founding Fathers intended. That's actually moot since they designed the constitution to be a living document subject to the interpretation and conventions of the times. Current interpretation of the 2nd amendment does not include insuring the populace has the firepower to overthrow the government no matter how much you wish it was so. Case closed.

If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?--Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939)



"They that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve
rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. ~~ Cesare Beccaria, (1764) quoted by Thomas Jefferson (1774-76)

You claimed that "effective gun control" would (as a "fact") reduce crime.

In the following cases, bans on handguns has done nothing to stop handgun murders:


Washington D.C:

"The D.C. law prohibits ownership or possession of handguns and requires that other arms, such as shotguns, be kept unloaded, disassembled or
equipped with trigger locks."

http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20040114-112126-4507r.htm

New York City:

"A license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, not otherwise limited as to place or time of possession, shall be effective throughout the state, except that the same shall not be valid within the city of New York unless a special permit granting validity is issued by the police commissioner of that city."

Which means that CCW is permitted in New York state, but not in NYC. And the "special permits" are only issued to a few select favorites, there were 3389 permits in Aug 2002 http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/newsday.html

Look up the number of firearm homicides in those two cities.

Craig
Although I don't like comparing apples with oranges, I will give this a shot (pardon the pun).

In Canada, gun control is not just in one city, or in one Province, but across the whole country. Gun control in Canada also involves ALL guns, not just handguns. Apparently New York state has gun control and you suggested that I look up the murder rates in New York City.

Here is what I found:

The number of homicides in New York City dropped to 580 for the year 2002, the lowest figure in 39 years.

That is total homicides, but how many of those are gun related, I am not sure, but the fact remains that there are definately less people being murdered by guns in New York. The number of murders in New York was 2,245 in 1990. The murder rate was 7.2 per 100,000 people.

While a 7.2 per 100,000 isn't necessarily a great rate, it is significantly lower than a number of US cities that do not have any form of gun control whatsoever.

What say you now?

Violent crime overall has been in decline since 1991.

Now wouldn't that INFRINGE on the right to keep & bear arms? In the language of the times, well regulated meant capable of hitting the target consistantly. A good idea for a Militia! Too bad we aren't allowed to HAVE Militias anymore... Now we have a Federal Army instead. The Second indulged in a bit of prophecy; no Militia, no free state...
militias are completely legal, michigan has a militia. no one else wants to form one though they just want to be able to have a gun because they are dumbasses and think its their right to shoot at their neighbors if they play their music too loud when they are drunk

Now that's a post that entices me to your side!

militias are completely legal, michigan has a militia. no one else wants to form one though...
Not to mention that if the shit hit’s the fan and our country is invaded all the people with guns gun get together to form an emergency militia. They probably wont be as effective as a well established militia, but they could be able to turn the tide of war enough.

the only way to secure true freedom for a nations citizens is to allow them to own heavy weapons. small arms are virtually useless in the defense of liberty
against a tryranical state.
What was your MOS that you are trained in HEAVY WEAPONs?
DO you know what heavy weapons are?
Your statement is absurd.

Violent crime overall has been in decline since 1991.However, it does take some work to come up with a rational answer???

Hey, news for everyone. Read the second amendment carefully. The government has the right to regulate whatever firearms it damn well pleases.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You read it carefully moron, the Militia is regulated the Right to bear arms is not to be infringed. Damn.
And in that context regulate is not ...nevermind.
WOW.

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Plain and simple.
The RIGHT is not for hunting, it is not for show, it is not for anything other then to defend the Security of a Free State.
You are a subject of a government if you are unable to defend yourself from it.
You are citizen of a government if you are able to defend the state itself.

Face reality, the constitution is subject to interpretation, thats one of the major reasons we have a judicial branch of government. You're the one who wants to redefine it, from the current interpretation to what you think it should be.

Um, could you please find one Constitutional interpretation that 'well regulated' does not mean the past and current interpretation? When you have that then you wont be talking garbage on a immaterial opinion of this matter.

Not to mention that if the shit hit’s the fan and our country is invaded all the people with guns gun get together to form an emergency militia. They probably wont be as effective as a well established militia, but they could be able to turn the tide of war enough.
listen dipweed, no thats wrong. militias are there period, they dont suddenly form

a militia is an armed body of citizens of a state under the STATES control, if you want to goa round waving a gun like a dipshit you are, call the local state capital, ask how to join the militia, and start learning to use your firearm properly

NO. The Army is under the State's control. The militia the people's army. U.S. states gave up all right to armies when they (or, in the case of Wyoming, he) ratified the Constitution.

As I recall, the NRA was formed in 1871 by the Governor of New York because some Union generals were disappointed at the poor marksmanship of some of those on the Union side. General Ambrose E. Burnside, former Commander of the Army of the Potomac, was its first president, and seven of the following nine presidents were veterans of the Civil War. In fact, after he was finished running the government, General Ulysses S. Grant became the eighth. It wasn't a bunch of "hicks" getting together, unless the Union Army was led by hicks.

NO. The Army is under the State's control. The militia the people's army. U.S. states gave up all right to armies when they (or, in the case of Wyoming, he) ratified the Constitution.

As I recall, the NRA was formed in 1871 by the Governor of New York because some Union generals were disappointed at the poor marksmanship of some of those on the Union side. General Ambrose E. Burnside, former Commander of the Army of the Potomac, was its first president, and seven of the following nine presidents were veterans of the Civil War. In fact, after he was finished running the government, General Ulysses S. Grant became the eighth. It wasn't a bunch of "hicks" getting together, unless the Union Army was led by hicks.
wrong, the militias are controlled by teh STATE, you have obviously done no research or study into the history of the american government if you believe the states and federal government were one in the same in the 1700 and 1800s, the were NOT. the militias were to protect the states and citizens of those states from the tyranny of the federal government and its official army.
that is why the south had every right to fight and take up arms against the federal government during the civil war

Are you defending slavery?

Are you defending slavery?
no, im defending something called fact, perhaps you heard of it

The point is that the Founding Fathers wanted a citizenry capable of overthrowing the government.

Excuse me a moment, I'm British, and we don't have guns lying around everywhere. ;)

lol, anyways, getting serious now: Why do people need to have guns anyway?

And don't give me that "to protect ourselves" crap, because if you didnt' allow guns then you wouldn't need them to protect yourself from other people with them.

wrong, the militias are controlled by teh STATE, you have obviously done no research or study into the history of the american government if you believe the states and federal government were one in the same in the 1700 and 1800s, the were NOT.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the militias were subordinate to the Federal Government's Armed Forces. The Federal Government could call upon the states to contribute their militias to the US Army during war, and the states had to obey. The militias were to give the states their own idea of an armed force, to be used to suppress any serious problems in the state (like an uprising or something, in which the Federal Government had no jurisdiction to suppress), and for the state's own pride.

Excuse me a moment, I'm British, and we don't have guns lying around everywhere. ;)

lol, anyways, getting serious now: Why do people need to have guns anyway?

And don't give me that "to protect ourselves" crap, because if you didnt' allow guns then you wouldn't need them to protect yourself from other people with them.

If guns were outlawed, only the outlaws would have them. Home defense, recreation, competition, collecting, and defending one's self from government are all fine uses of firearms.

Why do people need to have guns anyway?

Why do people have cars, dont tell me no one ever has been killed by a person operating a car (see people kill people tools dont kill people)? Why do people have money (dont tell me people dont die or be killed for money)?

Why do people have guns, because it is considered a tool here in America. Some use this tool for horrible means just as some do with the others I described. The one thing you are missing is that here in America, tools are used as a everyday way of business (yes even guns, suvs, money)in good ways. Here in America if you have a tool that has deadly and life saving capabilities then you are allowed to have that ability as long as you are not using it for horrible (illegal means). So be free with your deadly tools but be free to lose that priveledge if you mis use that right (here in the USA).

listen dipweed, no thats wrong. militias are there period, they dont suddenly form

a militia is an armed body of citizens of a state under the STATES control, if you want to goa round waving a gun like a dipshit you are, call the local state capital, ask how to join the militia, and start learning to use your firearm properly
WTF. What brought on this sudden desire to flame? I'd seriously like to know.

Why do people need to have guns anyway?



They don't. But why shouldn't they have them, if they aren't killing people with them?

WTF. What brought on this sudden desire to flame? I'd seriously like to know.
i like putting dip in front of dipwords

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the militias were subordinate to the Federal Government's Armed Forces. The Federal Government could call upon the states to contribute their militias to the US Army during war, and the states had to obey. The militias were to give the states their own idea of an armed force, to be used to suppress any serious problems in the state (like an uprising or something, in which the Federal Government had no jurisdiction to suppress), and for the state's own pride.
which is irrelevant to hte fact the militias were under the primary control of the state and not the federal government specfically and were for the purpose of defending the state and its people

If guns were outlawed, only the outlaws would have them.
That quote is soooo overworked. Also it is not true.

I hear they're using homemade guns in Australia...

which is irrelevant to hte fact the militias were under the primary control of the state and not the federal government specfically and were for the purpose of defending the state and its people

Yes, that is true, they are primarily under state control, except during times of war when they are under federal control. But their primary reason is to defend the state, but not against the Federal government, which it is techinically subordinate to.

Yes, that is true, they are primarily under state control, except during times of war when they are under federal control. But their primary reason is to defend the state, but not against the Federal government, which it is techinically subordinate to.
they were also for the purpose of defending the state against the federal government in case of tyranny

Look at it this way.

Anyone can easy get anything they want on the black market.

And if you have robbers with Uzis, why is it a crime to use the same gun in defence?

"A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You read it carefully moron, the Militia is regulated the Right to bear arms is not to be infringed. Damn.
And in that context regulate is not ...nevermind.
WOW.


Click me! (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6938202&postcount=162)

The definition of regulation for those of us who don't understand the english language.

They'll take MY semi-auto rifles from my cold, dead hands. I've had it with gun control. Since the 1994 "assault weapons ban" crime with so-called "assault weapons" has gone UP (while all other gun crime has gone down). The ban didn't do a damn thing to stop crime, it only prevented the people that do obey the law from owning them.

Fortunately most people have begun to realize that after 40 years of gun control we still have a crime problem, and banning more guns isn't the solution to that problem.

Gun ownership has gone UP in the last 10 years while gun crime has gone DOWN, throwing a monkey-wrench into the pathetic mantra that "more guns = more crime."

And all the British who smugly say their society is "gun free" always neglect to mention that their crime rate has soared higher than America's crime rate, and it continues to climb. Meanwhile the American crime rate is dropping.

Banning and restricting guns doesn't magically eliminate crime. It only means criminals use knives, pipes, sticks, hatchets, and ILLEGAL guns to commit crimes with. All you smug civilized British are thoroughly disarmed, totally dependent on "dial 999" for your personal safety. Better hope that, when your life is in danger, a phone is nearby and that the police rush quickly to your defense at 80 miles per hour.

Here in America, I am a responsible law-abiding gun owner with CCW permit for 26 states, and if my life is in danger I can send gel-filled hollow points rushing to my defense at 1,200 feet per second.

If given the choice between a phone or a .357 for use in an emergency, I'm picking the .357 hands down every time.

They'll take MY semi-auto rifles from my cold, dead hands. I've had it with gun control. Since the 1994 "assault weapons ban" crime with so-called "assault weapons" has gone UP (while all other gun crime has gone down). The ban didn't do a damn thing to stop crime, it only prevented the people that do obey the law from owning them.

Fortunately most people have begun to realize that after 40 years of gun control we still have a crime problem, and banning more guns isn't the solution to that problem.

Gun ownership has gone UP in the last 10 years while gun crime has gone DOWN, throwing a monkey-wrench into the pathetic mantra that "more guns = more crime."

And all the British who smugly say their society is "gun free" always neglect to mention that their crime rate has soared higher than America's crime rate, and it continues to climb. Meanwhile the American crime rate is dropping.

Banning and restricting guns doesn't magically eliminate crime. It only means criminals use knives, pipes, sticks, hatchets, and ILLEGAL guns to commit crimes with. All you smug civilized British are thoroughly disarmed, totally dependent on "dial 999" for your personal safety. Better hope that, when your life is in danger, a phone is nearby and that the police rush quickly to your defense at 80 miles per hour.

Here in America, I am a responsible law-abiding gun owner with CCW permit for 26 states, and if my life is in danger I can send gel-filled hollow points rushing to my defense at 1,200 feet per second.

If given the choice between a phone or a .357 for use in an emergency, I'm picking the .357 hands down every time.
If you are going to make statements, it is good to post links to back them up? Otherwise, it is just hollow rhetoric?

I did some more research into what actually constitutes what a militia is. And guess what I found out. A militia constitutes all able bodied males fit for military service. But this doesn’t necessarily make that militia well regulated. However there is such a thing known as the draft. Currently the draft is not in service, however people still have to register with the selective service before they turn 18. So it is still possible that the draft could be reinstated during a time of emergency. If somebody is already proficient in firearms when they are drafted they might get some advanced training in or at least hone their skills some more so that they could stand a better chance for survival. Or if it’s a real emergency their might not be time enough for a good training course and the person who already knows how to shoot would still stand a better chance for survival than somebody with relatively little shooting experience.

As I said, those ill-thought out hypothetical questions never prove your point.

You can fight back if you're hit with a bat. Fill someone's stomach full of lead, and they're not going to get up.

Maybe someone can fight back if YOU hit them with a bat, but if I hit you with a bat you ain't gettin' up. Just off the top of my head, there are at least three points on the human body which, if hit with a blunt object at medium force, will kill said person in a matter of seconds. Depending on what caliber weapon you are shot with, you could very easily fight back after being shot in the stomach.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-Benjamin Franklin

Yes, that is true, they are primarily under state control, except during times of war when they are under federal control. But their primary reason is to defend the state, but not against the Federal government, which it is techinically subordinate to.

Actually its the individual malitia member being conscripted during a time of war. You will still have the malitia at home minus the specific able bodied males the federal service conscripts, usualy this would entail every other able bodied male until further notice (minus one of a parents two sons ect...), the other son would serve states malitia. Which also would usualy consist of a volunteer unit unless conscription was also authorized

I hear they're using homemade guns in Australia...

If you'd bothered to read the post I made earlier, you'd have noticed that it's not that hard to get a gun in Australia, legally or otherwise...

I'm not aware of anyone using a home-made gun in a crime here- most criminals have real ones.

No one needs guns except for the police force and military and even then I think they should be restricted down to a fine point. Who needs a semi-automatic gun for hunting? That's a sport. Shoot 1000 bullets a minute at a bear who can't run more than 10km/h. :mp5: Real sportsmanlike. Also it's a load of bull when someone says they have it for 'self-defence'. You want self defence? Take a Wing Chun class. Then you'll be able to defend yourself. Guns are for cowards who wet their beds... (Waits for the flame)

A semi-automatic firearm fires one round each time the trigger is pulled and automatically reloads. Semi-automatic firearms remain widely available despite a symbolic ban. I need it for fun, competition, and scaring Uncle Sam.

No one needs guns except for the police force and military and even then I think they should be restricted down to a fine point. Who needs a semi-automatic gun for hunting? That's a sport. Shoot 1000 bullets a minute at a bear who can't run more than 10km/h. :mp5: Real sportsmanlike. Also it's a load of bull when someone says they have it for 'self-defence'. You want self defence? Take a Wing Chun class. Then you'll be able to defend yourself. Guns are for cowards who wet their beds... (Waits for the flame)

I agree with that. Making it legal to carry a gun will only make it easier to commit a crime. Prevention is better than curing. What about an 8 year old kid who finds his daddies' gun and goes to play soldiers with his friends, and kills one. What about the person who gets fired from his work, goes home to take his automatic or semi-automatic rifle and returns to work to shoot the whole place up. You want an uzi for self defense? Don't make me laugh. What are you gonna do when someone breaks in your house (why he would be heavely armed with heavy rifles etc. while he only wants to steal your TV, remains quite unclear to me), are you just gonna pump him full of lead?

And you who say that if they'd tried to take your gun, they would have to take it from your cold dead fingers. Lol. That only proves that you are gonna use that weapon to shoot anyone up who irritates you or anything like that, you paranoid gunfreak! :mad: I say you, allowing people to carry guns only encourages them to use them. If you have weapons, you will use them. Using them in self defence? Then the criminals will just get bigger weapons, or just shoot you on sight.

Also I don't concider murdering an animal with your semi-automatic rifle is very sportsmanlike either, that's just killing for the sake of having fun. Go play Doom or something. No offense to hunting, actually... I accept that it is there and that some like murdering animals, and sometimes it is neccesary indeed. To protect the farm animals. But just use a normal hunting rifle... Ofcource you will need to pass some kind of test before you are allowed to own one.

So what about the defensless people who will be overrun by the armed criminals? You concider yourself a soldier or something? That kind of stuff must be left to the policeforce. Actually now I think of it, more fundings might be required for the police to ensure they can prevent as much crime as possible, because the USA has one of the highest crime levels in the world.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But without guns, people would kill less people."

I agree with that. Making it legal to carry a gun will only make it easier to commit a crime. Prevention is better than curing. What about an 8 year old kid who finds his daddies' gun and goes to play soldiers with his friends, and kills one. What about the person who gets fired from his work, goes home to take his automatic or semi-automatic rifle and returns to work to shoot the whole place up. You want an uzi for self defense? Don't make me laugh. What are you gonna do when someone breaks in your house (why he would be heavely armed with heavy rifles etc. while he only wants to steal your TV, remains quite unclear to me), are you just gonna pump him full of lead?

Of course I am! It's my TV and he should work hard in the capitalist system to get his own!

And you who say that if they'd tried to take your gun, they would have to take it from your cold dead fingers. Lol. That only proves that you are gonna use that weapon to shoot anyone up who irritates you or anything like that, you paranoid gunfreak! :mad:

Did I ever say I wouldn't? Haven't I been talking all this time about defense?

I say you, allowing people to carry guns only encourages them to use them.

Idon't think you'd buy a gun you don't intend to use.

If you have weapons, you will use them. Using them in self defence? Then the criminals will just get bigger weapons, or just shoot you on sight.

An AK-47 will kill you just as dead as a particle laser beam will.

Also I don't concider murdering an animal with your semi-automatic rifle is very sportsmanlike either, that's just killing for the sake of having fun. Go play Doom or something. No offense to hunting, actually... I accept that it is there and that some like murdering animals, and sometimes it is neccesary indeed. To protect the farm animals. But just use a normal hunting rifle... Ofcource you will need to pass some kind of test before you are allowed to own one.

Most hunting rifles are semiautomatic.

So what about the defensless people who will be overrun by the armed criminals? You concider yourself a soldier or something? That kind of stuff must be left to the policeforce. Actually now I think of it, more fundings might be required for the police to ensure they can prevent as much crime as possible, because the USA has one of the highest crime levels in the world.

But we have about the 15th highest crime rate.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But without guns, people would kill less people."

Wrong.

Of course I am! It's my TV and he should work hard in the capitalist system to get his own!

I dont think that you have the right to kill a person in order to save your TV. But on the other hand, I'm not american. You might think differently on this.


Idon't think you'd buy a gun you don't intend to use.

Exactely my point.

An AK-47 will kill you just as dead as a particle laser beam will.

So? What is your point on that? :confused:



Most hunting rifles are semiautomatic.

Sorry, I didn't know that. But still I think an automatically reloading machine gun is in no way required to kill some foxes which keep on eating your chickens.



Originally Posted by Eataine
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But without guns, people would kill less people."

Wrong.

So your trying to say no one ever killed someone else with a gun? Or what are you trying to say???

Sports hunting is stupid. How would you like it if someone just walked into your house and started shooting at you for fun? Redneck moron.

That being said, semi-auto should be allowed. Semi-automatic pistols, rifles, shotguns. They all have a purpose that can rightly be argued(defense, hunting). The government has the right to ban the sale of rifles and shotguns, but that doesn't mean that it makes it right for them to do so. It should also be highly regulated, however. We don't need a bunch of insane people thinking the end of the world is coming stockpiling up on weapons.

Of course, the main problem with guns in America is the fact that it's America..

Sorry, I didn't know that. But still I think an automatically reloading machine gun is in no way required to kill some foxes which keep on eating your chickens.

A rifle is not a machinegun. Moron.
Machineguns sales are limited to police force and military institutions.

Sports hunting is stupid. How would you like it if someone just walked into your house and started shooting at you for fun? Redneck moron.

It should also be highly regulated, however. We don't need a bunch of insane people thinking the end of the world is coming stockpiling up on weapons.

I agree on both points.

Of course, the main problem with guns in America is the fact that it's America..

This thread is not ment to have a go at America. Though I do not agree in many ways how America is, I do not hate it and start making pointless comments like that.

A rifle is not a machinegun. Moron.
Machineguns sales are limited to police force and military institutions.

About the same... the 'cleaning off the fox overpopulation' should be left to special teams which can be hired when in need. It should not be left to the farmers themselves to buy a shotgun and shoot wildlife at their will.

About the same... the 'cleaning off the fox overpopulation' should be left to special teams which can be hired when in need. It should not be left to the farmers themselves to buy a shotgun and shoot wildlife at their will.

Farmers have the right to have a weapon to go and shoot at any wildlife attacking their crops or their animals. I'm sure they try to scare away any foxes or wild dogs if they're not doing too much damage, but if you live in the middle of nowhere and you have a bunch of feral animals that will attack anything for food, you do need protection..

And it wasn't so much on the fox thing, it was mostly pointing out that you're arguing about how awful guns are but you don't know the difference between a rifle and a machinegun. Normally people can get away with not knowing simple gun information in arguing about guns, but this forum is specifically about semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.


This thread is not ment to have a go at America. Though I do not agree in many ways how America is, I do not hate it and start making pointless comments like that.

It was supposed to be funny. :(

About the same... the 'cleaning off the fox overpopulation' should be left to special teams which can be hired when in need. It should not be left to the farmers themselves to buy a shotgun and shoot wildlife at their will.

They'd probably hire the people who'd be hunting anyway. Now they're hunting, and getting paid for it by the taxpayers.

I don't think you'd buy a gun you don't intend to use.

Exactely my point.

But how do I intend to use it? Once again, I do not appreciate being called a mass murderer, and by enlightened souls at that.

An AK-47 will kill you just as dead as a particle laser beam will.

So? What is your point on that?

The robber could be packing a G36 (highly unlikely), but I could still take him out with my AR-15.

It's kinda harsh to flame the person who says 'machinegun' while the other person was thinking about 'shotgun'. If you allow people to carry a shotgun around and shoot people who offended them, then the next step might just be to allow them to do the same with machineguns.

And the machinegun part might have just been a little sarcastic :rolleyes:

And the part about america being bad cuz its america well lol it sounded serious when I read it first time. :)

But how do I intend to use it? Once again, I do not appreciate being called a mass murderer, and by enlightened souls at that.

I did not call you a mass murderer. I just said that I think people who buy a gun, will use them. And I do not think it is a good idea to arm untrained (well you might just be trained and therefore you feel you need to carry a shotgun) with weapons.

The robber could be packing a G36 (highly unlikely), but I could still take him out with my AR-15.

Obviously, you have been playing to much games like GTA Vice City or Doom.

It's kinda harsh to flame the person who says 'machinegun' while the other person was thinking about 'shotgun'. If you allow people to carry a shotgun around and shoot people who offended them, then the next step might just be to allow them to do the same with machineguns.

And the machinegun part might have just been a little sarcastic :rolleyes:


No, it's not, because now you're aruguing on points without knowing anything aobut the specifics..it's like trying to argue about how great a certain car is but only knowing that it's pretty and it goes fast.

And a machinegun is entirely different from a shotgun. Shotguns are legal for personal defense, but machineguns have never been available for civilians, and they won't be evar. And if you knew what you were talking about you would know why.

I did not call you a mass murderer. I just said that I think people who buy a gun, will use them.

Of course they will use them. At firing ranges. :D

But we have about the 15th highest crime rate.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/984

More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

Shotguns are legal for personal defense, but machineguns have never been available for civilians, and they won't be evar.

They were at the time of the National Firearms Act of 1934, when Al Capone was using them.

I did not call you a mass murderer.

Yes, you did. You call me a mass murderer when you say that semi-automatic weapons have no purpose but killing people.

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/984

More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

We win! In your face!

No, it's not, because now you're aruguing on points without knowing anything aobut the specifics..it's like trying to argue about how great a certain car is but only knowing that it's pretty and it goes fast.

And a machinegun is entirely different from a shotgun. Shotguns are legal for personal defense, but machineguns have never been available for civilians, and they won't be evar. And if you knew what you were talking about you would know why.

Read the post you were just quoting to... that was a sarcastic way of refering to sarcasm. I will try not to use it anymore, because obviously some people just don't get it. (just like me with the 'america is bad because its america' thing :rolleyes: )

I think that I pretty darn well know the difference between a shotgun and a machinegun, but I still disagree that shotguns are legal for 'self defense'. Saying that anyone who knows the difference between shotguns and machineguns automatically agrees with the fact that shotguns should be legal and machineguns not... Thats just... tsssss

We win! In your face!
Too funny!! :D

Read the post you were just quoting to... that was a sarcastic way of refering to sarcasm. I will try not to use it anymore, because obviously some people just don't get it. (just like me with the 'america is bad because its america' thing :rolleyes: )

I think that I pretty darn well know the difference between a shotgun and a machinegun, but I still disagree that shotguns are legal for 'self defense'. Saying that anyone who knows the difference between shotguns and machineguns automatically agrees with the fact that shotguns should be legal and machineguns not... Thats just... tsssss

No, I'm not saying people who know agree with the issue...they just know. D:

Oh, and what's teh difference between a clip and a magazine? That's a good one..

Yes, you did. You call me a mass murderer when you say that semi-automatic weapons have no purpose but killing people.

I am saying that firearms are dangarous and should not be used by civillians. Owning a shotgun does not automatically make you a mass murderer, but not owning one CANT make you a mass murderer.

I don't know if you guys approve of mass murderers... :rolleyes:

http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/984

More than 5.6 million Americans are in prison or have served time there, according to a new report by the Justice Department released Sunday. That's 1 in 37 adults living in the United States, the highest incarceration level in the world.

Multiple-year sentences.

Sorry, try again.

Multiple-year sentences.

Sorry, try again.

What is wrong with muliple-year sentences? They are still there because of a crime they did (which is obviously bad because they are there for a long time)

And I am not here to make some kind of 'test' about my knowledge of firearms. You would not appreciate it either. So I'm just gonna ignore that question of yours....

It's sarcasm. "Clip" is a common term for a magazine.

By the way, I have no problem with multiple-year sentences, I'm just debunking your argument in three words. :)

And I am not here to make some kind of 'test' about my knowledge of firearms. You would not appreciate it either. So I'm just gonna ignore that question of yours....

But that's what this is...take your knowledge about firearms, society, and people, and talk about how the three go together. You have to know about all three.

And everyone is equipped to be a prostitute, as a gerneral said, but how many people are? And since most of them are female anyway, does that mean we should do some sort of operation on females, just because they have the potential to be one?

I am saying that firearms are dangarous and should not be used by civillians. Owning a shotgun does not automatically make you a mass murderer, but not owning one CANT make you a mass murderer.

I don't know if you guys approve of mass murderers... :rolleyes:
Mass murderers have existed long before the advent of guns.

Ever hear of Passover?

It's sarcasm. "Clip" is a common term for a magazine.

By the way, I have no problem with multiple-year sentences, I'm just debunking your argument in three words. :)

No. :( A clip is where all the bullets are on a piece, or a clip, of metal. When the clip is expended you eject it and put a new one in. Not really used anymore.

At least that's what I remember from a couple different sources.


...and we still win anyway.

By the way, I have no problem with multiple-year sentences, I'm just debunking your argument in three words

Do you mean that you are saying that his statement is false while you don't have any reason to do so and just try to prove it wrong without any information to it???

I dont get the word 'debunking...' :)

Ever hear of Passover?

No. What's Passover?